NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report March 2000

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports

Low-Income Students:

Who They Are and How

They Pay for Their Education

Susan P. Choy

MPR Associates, Inc.

Larry Bobbitt

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2000–169
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary W. Phillips

Acting Commissioner

Postsecondary Division

C. Dennis Carroll

Associate Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing,

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in

the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance

of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and

review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable,

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high

quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers,

practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating

information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or

report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208–5651

March 2000

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is

http://nces.ed.gov

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Low-Income Students: Who They

Are and How They Pay for Their Education, NCES 2000–169, by Susan Choy. Project Officer: Larry

Bobbitt. Washington DC: 2000.

Contact:

Aurora D’Amico

(202) 219–1365
iii

Executive Summary

Students from low-income families typically

need substantial financial assistance to be able to

attend college. This report examines the characteristics of low-income undergraduates and how

they pay for college. It begins with a profile of

low-income students, comparing them with their

not-low-income counterparts. Then, focusing on

low-income students who attend full time, full

year, it examines their financial need, describes

the contribution of financial aid, and presents

what is known about how they close the gap between what they have to pay and the amount of aid

they receive. Finally, the report compares threeyear persistence among low-income and not-lowincome undergraduates.

For the purposes of this report, low-income

students were defined as those whose family income was below 125 percent of the federally established poverty level for their family size.

Because the prices students pay and the financing

strategies they adopt vary substantially with institutional level and control, students at public 4-

year, private, not-for-profit 4-year, and public 2-

year institutions are examined separately. Within

institution type, dependents, independents without

dependents, and independents with dependents are

also considered separately because their financial

obligations are quite different, and they are treated

differently by the financial aid system.

The analysis relies primarily on the 1995–96

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), but also uses selected data from

NPSAS:93 for comparison and data from the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal

Study (BPS:96/98) to examine persistence.

Profile of Low-Income

Undergraduates

In 1995–96, 26 percent of all undergraduates

were low income. At private, not-for-profit 4-year;

public 4-year; and public 2-year institutions, the

proportion of students who were low income

ranged from 21 to 26 percent. A much greater

proportion of students at private, for profit institutions were low income (48 percent), but relatively

few (about 5 percent of all undergraduates) attended this type of institution.

About one-half (49 percent) of all undergraduates were dependents, and a relatively small proportion were from low-income families (figure A).

The other half of the undergraduate population

was about evenly divided between independents
Executive Summary

iv

without and with dependents of their own.

(Spouses are not considered dependents.) Independent students were more likely than dependents to be low income because their parents’

financial circumstances are not considered for aid

purposes.

Overall, 17 percent of dependent undergraduates were defined as low income. Certain groups

were particularly likely to be in this category, including minorities and students whose parents had

not gone to college. As parents’ education increased, the percentage who were low income decreased (from 55 percent when both parents had

less than a high school diploma to 23 percent

when at least one parent had finished high school

to 12 percent when at least one parent had attended college).

Independents without dependents were almost

twice as likely as dependents to be low income (31

percent were in this category). Rather than reflecting a disadvantaged background (there was no

strong relationship between parents’ education

and students’ low-income status), low-income

status was closely related to marital status, age,

and employment and enrollment status. Independents without dependents were much more likely to

be low income if they were single rather than married. The likelihood of being low income declined

with age, in part because older students are more

likely to be married and have greater earning potential. Students who did not work or considered

themselves primarily students were more likely to

be low income than those who considered themselves primarily employees. About half of those

who enrolled full time, full year (51 percent) were

low income.

Independents with dependents include single or

married students with children or other dependents. As indicated earlier, spouses are not considered dependents; their incomes are included in

calculating family income. This group was the

most likely to be low income (40 percent). As was

true for independents without dependents, lowincome status was related to marital status, age,

and primary role while enrolled (student or employee). Fifty-six percent of single parents were

low income; the younger the students, the more

likely they were to be low income; and they were

more likely to be low income if they did not work

or if they worked but considered themselves primarily students.

Financial Need

Financial need is the difference between the

price of attending a postsecondary institution and

what the student is expected to pay based on the

family’s financial circumstances. Compared with

the average prices of attending the different types

of institutions, the average expected family contributions (EFCs) for low-income students were

relatively small (table A). Consequently, virtually

all low-income undergraduates attending full time,

full year had financial need (that is, the student

budget minus EFC was greater than zero). The

amounts of financial need were substantial at all

types of institutions, ranging from about $5,800 to

$16,700, varying with dependency status and type

of institution (table A).

Financial Aid

Most low-income students attending full time,

full year (86 percent) received some financial aid,

and the average amount received by low-income

students (calculated including those with no aid)

was about $6,100. Most (81 percent) received

grants, which averaged $3,900 for those who received them. Loans were an important source of

aid as well, with 51 percent borrowing. The average loan for those who borrowed was $4,700.
Executive Summary

v

Most borrowers (66 percent) did not reach the

maximum permitted under the Stafford loan program. As did financial need, aid patterns for fulltime, full-year, low-income students varied substantially by type of institution and dependency

status.

Aided low-income students attending full time,

full year had about 60 percent of their budgets

covered by aid. About 60 percent of their aid was

in the form of grants and 32 percent was in the

form of loans; the rest came from work-study and

“other” types of aid. Again, these proportions

varied considerably by dependency status and institution type.

Closing the Gap

The net price that low-income students pay for

their education is the difference between the student budget and financial aid. This represents the

amount that students must come up with to pay for

their education. Even for low-income students

attending full time, full year, a substantial part of

this gap is met by student earnings while enrolled

(table A). These earnings do not cover the net

price, however. For dependent students, the

amounts left after taking into account student

earnings appear to be considerably higher than

their families could afford to cover (and that data

on parent contributions suggest that they are covTable A—Average budget, EFC, financial need, aid, unmet need, net price, and earnings for low-income underTable A—graduates enrolled full time, full year, by type of institution and dependency status: 1995–96

 Expected

 family 

 Student contribution Financial Total Unmet Net

 budget (EFC) need1 aid need2 price3 Earnings 

 Total4 $11,579 $768 $10,876 $6,116 $4,844 $5,443 $2,889 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 10,745 760 10,051 6,256 3,903 4,487 3,236 

 Dependents 10,300 932 9,488 5,531 4,056 4,763 2,593 

 Independents without dependents 11,137 808 10,329 6,660 3,835 4,476 3,750 

 Independents with dependents 11,347 149 11,226 7,677 3,564 3,672 3,630 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 17,203 1,127 16,264 10,060 6,367 7,145 2,801 

 Dependents 17,917 1,503 16,703 10,286 6,622 7,633 2,187 

 Independents without dependents 16,745 797 16,012 10,718 5,444 6,030 3,613 

 Independents with dependents 15,237 223 15,014 8,226 6,814 7,012 3,470 

 Public 2-year 7,659 606 7,051 3,059 4,088 4,598 2,361 

 Dependents 6,409 637 5,768 2,447 3,354 3,962 2,745 

 Independents without dependents 9,025 1,128 7,897 3,399 4,871 5,627 1,418 

 Independents with dependents 8,112 264 7,848 3,482 4,367 4,630 2,478 

1

Student budget minus EFC. In this table, the difference between the average student budget and the average expected contribution is not

exactly equal to the average financial need because of missing data for each variable. The same is true for other computed differences in this

table. No variable used to compute differences has more than 1 percent missing data for full-time, full-year low-income undergraduates. 2

Student budget minus EFC minus aid.

3

Student budget minus all aid.

4

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution. Averages computed including zero values. For example, average total aid

is computed including students with no aid.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
Executive Summary

vi

ering), especially at private, not-for-profit 4-year

institutions. For independents without dependents,

earnings cover most of the net price at 4-year

public institutions, but the gaps at private, not-forprofit 4-year institutions and public 2-year institutions are large. The pattern is similar for independents with dependents.

Despite these apparent gaps between the net

price of attending and students’ financial resources, the students are enrolled. How do they

manage? One possibility is that they are surviving

on a lower budget than estimated by their institutions. Other possibilities are that students are actually earning more than estimated (students often

have numerous short-term jobs), are able to save

from summer earnings, or have savings accumulated before they enrolled. Yet another is that they

have received more than estimated from their parents. Or, they may be borrowing from sources

other than student loan programs.

The actual contributions of parents and other

family members are difficult to determine because

families typically do not keep detailed records and

this type of information is difficult to recall many

months later in a telephone interview. In addition

to the amounts reported as allowances, about onethird of all low-income students attending full

time, full year reported that their parents paid for

all or part of their tuition, housing, meals, or

books, but we do not know how much this

amounts to. Low-income independent students do

not necessarily come from low-income backgrounds, so their parents may have substantial resources.

Low-Income Status and Persistence

Many worry that financial problems may force

low-income students to drop out or interrupt their

education. Persistence is affected by a variety of

factors other than income. In order to determine

whether persistence is associated with low-income

status independently of these other factors, a multivariate analysis was conducted. The results show

that low-income students who began their postsecondary education in 1995–96 were less likely

than their not-low-income counterparts to have

earned a degree or certificate or still be enrolled in

1998. This was true even after controlling for student background (gender, race/ethnicity, and parents’ education) and other factors likely to affect

persistence (dependency status, institution type,

enrollment delay after high school, enrollment

status, amount worked, borrowing, and assistance

from parents).
vii

Foreword

This report examines the characteristics of low-income undergraduates and how they pay

for their education. It begins with a profile of low-income undergraduates, comparing them with

their not-low-income counterparts. Then, focusing on low-income students who attend full time,

full year, it examines their financial need, describes the contribution of financial aid to meeting

their need, and, to the extent possible, how they close the gap between what they have to pay and

the amount of financial aid they receive. Data are shown separately by type of institution, and

within type of institution, by dependency status for financial aid purposes. Finally, the report

compares three-year persistence in postsecondary education for low- and not-low-income undergraduates.

The report relies primarily on data from the 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:96), but also uses selected data from NPSAS:93 for comparison and data from

the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/98) to examine persistence.

NPSAS:96 is the fourth in a series of large-scale data collections sponsored by the National

Center for Education Statistics that provide detailed information on how students and their families pay for postsecondary education. The first was collected in 1986–87, followed by additional

collections in 1990–91, 1992–93, and 1995–96. The 1995–96 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/98) provides a followup of a sample of respondents included in

NPSAS:96 who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time during the 1995–96 academic year. Detailed information on both of these surveys is available on the NCES website:

http://nces.ed.gov.

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:96 and BPS:96/98

Data Analysis Systems (DAS). The DAS is a microcomputer application that allows users to

specify and generate their own tables from the NPSAS:96 and BPS:96/98 data and is available

for public use through the NCES website. The DAS produces the design-adjusted standard errors

necessary for testing the statistical significance of differences shown in these tables. Additional

information about the DAS may be found in appendix C of this report and on the NCES website

at http://nces.gov/das.
viii

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all of those who contributed to this report. At MPR Associates,

Laura Horn and Lutz Berkner reviewed the analysis at various stages and provided helpful comments. Helen Jang and Vishant Shah ran the tables. Barbara Kridl supervised the production of

the report. Andrea Livingston and Karyn Madden edited and proofread the report; Leslie Retallick prepared the graphics; and Francesca Tussing formatted the tables and assembled the final

report.

We would also like to acknowledge the careful review and thoughtful comments provided

by the following reviewers: Dennis Carroll, Paula Knepper, Roslyn Korb, Bruce Taylor, Ellen

Bradburn, and Stephen Broughman, of NCES; and Daniel Goldenberg from the Office of the

Under Secretary (OUS).
ix

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. iii

Foreword.................................................................................................................................... vii

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xi

List of Figures............................................................................................................................ xv

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1

Background ........................................................................................................................... 1

Definition of Low Income..................................................................................................... 2

Data ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Approach to the Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4

Profile of Low-Income Undergraduates.................................................................................. 5

Dependents............................................................................................................................ 8

Independents Without Dependents........................................................................................ 8

Independents With Dependents............................................................................................. 12

Financial Need ........................................................................................................................... 15

Price of Attending ................................................................................................................. 16

Expected Family Contribution (EFC) ................................................................................... 17

Financial Need....................................................................................................................... 18

Financial Aid.............................................................................................................................. 21

Types of Aid.......................................................................................................................... 22

Sources of Aid....................................................................................................................... 29

Relative Importance of Grants and Loans ............................................................................. 30

Closing the Gap ......................................................................................................................... 33

Unmet Need........................................................................................................................... 33

Net Price................................................................................................................................ 35

Work...................................................................................................................................... 36

Parental Financial Support .................................................................................................... 37

Loans From Parents............................................................................................................... 39

Summary ............................................................................................................................... 40
Table of Contents

x

Page

Changes Between 1992–93 and 1995–96 ................................................................................. 43

Persistence Among Low-Income Students.............................................................................. 47

Summary and Conclusions....................................................................................................... 51

Appendix A—Supplemental Tables ........................................................................................ 53

Appendix B—Glossary ............................................................................................................. 75

Appendix C—Technical Notes and Methodology .................................................................. 93
xi

List of Tables

Table Page

Executive Summary Table

A Average budget, EFC, financial need, aid, unmet need, net price, and earnings for

low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, by type of institution and

dependency status: 1995–96............................................................................................ v

Text Tables

1 Percentage of undergraduates who were from low-income families, by dependency

status and selected student characteristics: 1995–96....................................................... 6

2 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to selected characteristics, by

income and dependency status: 1995–96 ........................................................................ 9

3 Average tuition and fees, student budget, expected family contribution, and financial

need for low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, and percentage with

financial need, by type of institution and dependency status: 1995–96 .......................... 16

4 Percentage of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year who applied for

and received financial aid, by type of aid, type of institution, and dependency status:

1995–96........................................................................................................................... 21

5 Average amount of aid received by low income undergraduates enrolled full time, full

year, by type of aid, type of institution, and dependency status: 1995–96...................... 25

6 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled full time, full year according to

amount borrowed through the Stafford loan program, by income status, type of

institution, and dependency status: 1995–96................................................................... 27

7 Average amount borrowed in unsubsidized and total Stafford loans by full-time, fullyear undergraduates, by income status, type of institution, and dependency status:

1995–96........................................................................................................................... 29

8 Percentage of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year who received

aid and average amount received, by source of aid, type of institution, and dependency

status: 1995–96................................................................................................................ 30
List of Tables

xii

Table Page

9 Total aid as a percentage of the student budget and grants, loans, and federal aid as

percentages of total aid for low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year,

by type of institution and dependency status: 1995–96................................................... 31

10 Average budget, EFC, financial need, aid, unmet need, and net price for low-income

undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, by type of institution and dependency

status: 1995–96................................................................................................................ 34

11 Percentage distribution of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year

according to amount of unmet need, by type of institution and dependency status:

1995–96........................................................................................................................... 35

12 Percentage of undergraduates enrolled full time, full year whose parents expected

them to work, percentage who worked, average hours worked, and average earnings,

by income status, type of institution, and dependency status: 1995–96.......................... 36

13 Percentage of undergraduates enrolled full time, full year whose parents made direct

contributions, percentage who received an allowance from their parents, and average

allowance, by income status, type of institution, and dependency status: 1995–96........ 37

14 Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled full time, full year according to the

level of other types of support received from their parents, by income status, type of

institution, and dependency status: 1995–96................................................................... 38

15 Percentage of undergraduates enrolled full time, full year who borrowed money from

their parents that they expected to repay and average amount borrowed, by income

status, type of institution, and dependency status: 1995–96 ........................................... 39

16 Average tuition, budget, financial need, financial aid, net price, and earnings while

enrolled for low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, by type of

institution and dependency status: 1992–93 and 1995–96.............................................. 44

17 Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who attained a degree or

were still enrolled in 1998 and the adjusted percentage after controlling for the

variables listed in the table.............................................................................................. 48

Appendix Tables

There is no table A.1 or A.2.

A.3 Average tuition and fees, student budget, expected family contribution, and financial

need for low-income undergraduates and percentage with financial need, by selected

characteristics: 1995–96.................................................................................................. 55
List of Tables

xiii

Table Page

A.4 Percentage of low-income undergraduates who applied for and received financial aid,

by type of aid and selected characteristics: 1995–96 ...................................................... 57

A.5 Average amount of aid received by low-income undergraduates, by type of aid and

selected characteristics: 1995–96 .................................................................................... 58

A.6 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to amount borrowed through the

Stafford loan program, by income status and selected characteristics: 1995–96 ............ 60

A.7 Average amount borrowed in unsubsidized and total Stafford loans, by income status

and selected characteristics: 1995–96 ............................................................................. 61

A.8 Percentage of low-income undergraduates who received aid and average amount

received, by source of aid and selected characteristics: 1995–96 ................................... 62

A.9 Total aid as a percentage of the student budget and grants, loans, and federal aid as

percentages of total aid for low-income undergraduates, by selected characteristics:

1995–96........................................................................................................................... 64

A.10 Average budget, EFC, financial need, aid, unmet need, and net price for low income

undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, by type of institution and dependency

status: 1995–96................................................................................................................ 65

A.11 Percentage distribution of low-income undergraduates according to amount of unmet

need, by selected characteristics: 1995–96...................................................................... 66

A.12 Percentage of undergraduates whose parents expected them to work, percentage who

worked, average hours worked, and average earnings, by income status, type of

institution, and attendance status: 1995–96..................................................................... 67

A.13 Percentage of undergraduates whose parents made direct contributions, percentage

who received an allowance from their parents, and average allowance, by income

status and selected characteristics: 1995–96 ................................................................... 68

A.14 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to the level of other types of

support received from their parents, by income status and selected characteristics:

1995–96........................................................................................................................... 69

A.15 Percentage of undergraduates who borrowed money from their parents that they

expected to repay and average amount borrowed, by income status and selected

characteristics: 1995–96.................................................................................................. 70

A.16a Average tuition, budget, financial need, financial aid, net price, and earnings while

enrolled for low-income undergraduates, by selected characteristics: 1992–93 ............. 71
List of Tables

xiv

Table Page

A.16b Average tuition, budget, financial need, financial aid, net price, and earnings while

enrolled for low-income undergraduates, by selected characteristics: 1995–96 ............. 72

C1 Standard errors for table 4: Percentage of low-income undergraduates enrolled full

time, full year who applied for and received financial aid, by type of aid, type of

institution, and dependency status: 1995–96................................................................... 95
xv

List of Figures

Figure Page

Executive Summary Figure

A Percentage distribution of undergraduates by income and dependency status:

1995–96........................................................................................................................... iii

Text Figures

1 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by income and dependency status:

1995–96........................................................................................................................... 7

2 Average financial need for low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, by

type of institution and dependency status: 1995–96........................................................ 19

3 Average expected family contribution compared to average full-time, full-year

budget, by dependency status and family income: 1995–96 ........................................... 20

4 Percentage of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year with grants and

average amount of grants for students with grants, by type of institution and

dependency status: 1995–96............................................................................................ 24

5 Percentage of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year with loans and

average amount of loans for students with loans, by type of institution and

dependency status: 1995–96............................................................................................ 26

6 Percentage of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year with the

maximum Stafford loan for their level, by type of institution and dependency status:

1995–96........................................................................................................................... 28

7 Average amounts for selected components of price and sources of funds for

dependent low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, by type of

institution: 1995–96 ........................................................................................................ 40

8 Average amounts for selected components of price and sources of funds for

independent low-income undergraduates without dependents enrolled full time, full

year, by type of institution: 1995–96............................................................................... 41
List of Figures

xvi

Figure Page

9 Average amounts for selected components of price and sources of funds for

independent low-income undergraduates with dependents enrolled full time, full year,

by type of institution: 1995–96 ....................................................................................... 42

10 Percentage of independent low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year

who borrowed through student loan programs, by type of institution and dependency

status: 1992–93 and 1995–96.......................................................................................... 45
1

Introduction

Paying for undergraduate education has traditionally been seen as primarily a family obligation, to be met to the extent possible through some combination of current earnings, savings,

and borrowing. Low-income families rarely have substantial savings or assets against which to

borrow, and are unlikely to have enough to pay for college out of current income. To place their

situation in context, a family at the 20th income percentile (that is, 80 percent of all families have

higher incomes) would be required to spend 32 percent of their income to cover the charges for

tuition, room, and board at an average-priced public college or university in 1995 and 89 percent

at an average-priced private one.1 Thus, students from low-income families will normally need

substantial financial assistance to be able to attend college.

This report examines the characteristics of low-income undergraduates and how they pay

for college. It begins with a profile of low-income undergraduates, comparing them with their

not-low-income counterparts. It then examines their financial need, describes the contribution of

financial aid, and presents what is known about how students close the gap between what they

have to pay and the amount of aid they receive. Finally, the report compares three-year persistence rates for low-income and not-low-income undergraduates.

Background

In the years since the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the federal government

has established a range of programs to provide financial assistance to students enrolled in postsecondary education. This assistance comes in many forms, including grants, which do not need

to be repaid, subsidized and unsubsidized loans, which must be repaid, and subsidized student

employment through work-study programs. Most states support students through the tuition subsidy provided to all students at public institutions, and many states offer their own student aid

programs over and above the federal ones. Still more financial assistance, usually in the form of

grants, comes from institutions, community organizations, employers, and others. While some of

these programs are merit based and provide support to students in a wide range of income brackets, most target students with financial need. A fundamental objective of financial aid programs

has always been to enable students with limited financial resources to continue their education

 

1U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 1997 (NCES 97–388)

(Washington, DC: 1997). Private institutions include both not-for-profit and for-profit institutions.
Introduction

2

after high school and to minimize the financial constraints that limit students’ choice of institutions.

As the price of attending college has escalated, concerns about accessibility and affordability for low-income students have intensified. To determine how low-income undergraduates

pay for college and how well the current financial aid system is serving them, this report addresses questions such as: What are the characteristics of low-income students other than their

limited financial resources, and how do these characteristics compare with those of other students? What is the price of their undergraduate education, and how much financial help do they

need? How many low-income undergraduates received financial aid of each type, and how much

did they receive? What proportion of their expenses are not met by financial aid, and what do we

know about how they cover these expenses? Do low-income students have lower persistence

rates than those with greater financial resources?

While the data available to this study provide useful insights about how low-income undergraduates pay for their education, it is impossible to describe completely how they do so. First,

we do not know the exact amounts they pay. An assumption has to be made that the student

budget determined by the institution is a close approximation of the price of attending, and this

assumption may not always be correct. (This topic is discussed further in the section on the price

of attending.) Second, while the amounts of student aid awarded through federal, state, and institutional programs are well documented by the institutions attended, information on other

scholarships, employer aid, student earnings, and contributions from families and friends is all

student reported through telephone interviews. Consequently, only a limited amount of time is

available to gather information. Furthermore, individuals’ recollections of the exact amounts of

their earnings and of contributions from relatives and friends over a period of a year are unavoidably approximate. Nevertheless, the analysis provides considerable useful information on how

low-income students pay for their education, particularly on the extent to which student financial

aid programs support them.

Definition of Low Income

For this analysis, low-income students were defined as those whose family income was

below 125 percent of the federally established poverty level for their family size. In 1994 (the

determining year for 1995–96 financial aid eligibility), the levels were as follows:
Introduction

3

125 percent of

Family size Poverty threshold the poverty threshold

1 $7,710 $9,638

2 9,976 12,470

3 11,821 14,776

4 15,141 18,926

5 17,900 22,375

6 20,235 25,294

7 22,923 28,654

8 25,427 31,784

9 or more 30,300 37,875

For dependent students, family income includes their parents’ income as well as their own;

for independents with and without dependents of their own, it includes the student’s income and

the spouse’s income if the student is married. (For financial aid purposes, a spouse is not considered a dependent.)

This definition of low income, also used in an earlier report on low-income students,2 has

several advantages. First, it is independent of who goes to college, meaning that students meeting

this criterion are poor relative to the general population, not just relative to other college students. Second, because the poverty levels are stated in terms of both income and family size (as

shown above), comparisons among students in different family sizes are appropriate. Finally, the

poverty levels are updated annually and adjusted for inflation, allowing meaningful comparisons

over time.

Data

This report relies primarily on data collected through the 1995–96 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96). NPSAS:96 combines student and parent interview data; institution-reported registration and financial aid data; institutional characteristics matched from the

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS); student background and financial information from FAFSA financial aid forms (aid applicants only); and longitudinal loan data from

the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) (federal loan recipients only). To examine

change over time, selected data from NPSAS:93 are used.

The analysis of persistence uses the 1995–96 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/98) data to examine the relationship between income status and 2-year persistence rates. BPS:96/98 provides a followup of a sample of respondents included in NPSAS:96

 

2U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, How Low-Income Undergraduates Financed Postsecondary Education: 1992–93 (NCES 96–161) (Washington, DC: 1996).
Introduction

4

who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time during the 1995–96 academic year.

This survey collected information on students’ experiences in the first two years of postsecondary

education and, if they left within two years of starting, their educational attainment and early labor force experiences.

Approach to the Analysis

Because the prices students pay and the financing strategies they adopt vary substantially

with institutional level and control, students at public 4-year; private, not-for-profit 4-year; and

public 2-year institutions are examined separately. Students who attended more than one institution in 1995–96 (about 5 percent of all undergraduates3) are excluded from most of the analysis

in order to avoid the confounding effect of different prices of attending and varying types of aid

when a student attends more than one institution.

Within institution type, students who attended full time for the full year (36 percent of all

undergraduates) and students who attended part time for the full year (23 percent of all undergraduates) are examined separately. The 41 percent of undergraduates who did not attend either

full time, full year or part time, full year have such varied attendance patterns that it is impossible

to discuss them meaningfully as a group. The discussion of student characteristics covers all lowincome students, but the discussion of how students pay for college focuses primarily on students

who attended full time, full year. Data on all students and on part-time, full-year students are presented in tables in appendix A. These tables also show data for students who attended private,

for-profit institutions, but not by attendance status because of the relatively few number of students at this type of institution (5 percent of all undergraduates).4

The low-income student population consists of traditional college-aged students who are

financially dependent on their parents, financially independent students with no dependents of

their own, and financially independent students with their own dependents. (Spouses are not considered dependents here.) These three groups have quite different financial resources and obligations and are treated differently by the financial aid system. Therefore, when examining how lowincome students pay for their education, it is important to consider each group separately within

institution type. Because how students pay for their education generally varies more by institution

type than by dependency status, the data are presented by dependency status within institution

type rather than by institution type within dependency status.

 

3U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1995–96 (NCES 98–084) (Washington, DC: 1998).

4Ibid.
5

Profile of Low-Income Undergraduates

In 1995–96, 26 percent of all undergraduates were low income according to the definition

adopted for this analysis (table 1). At private, not-for-profit 4-year; public 4-year; and public 2-

year institutions, the proportion of students who were low income ranged from 21 to 26 percent

(table 1). A much greater proportion of students at private, for-profit institutions were low income (48 percent); however, as indicated in the Introduction, only 5 percent of all undergraduates

attended this type of institution.

Students with certain demographic characteristics were particularly likely to be low income. Students ages 24–29 were in this category (40 percent were low income), as were minorities (black, non-Hispanics, 43 percent; Hispanics, 40 percent; Asian/Pacific Islanders, 34 percent;

and American Indian/Alaskan Natives, 42 percent), single parents (56 percent), students from

families where neither parent finished high school (38 percent), and students from families where

neither parent had gone to college (31 percent).

While the definition of low income used in this analysis is unrelated to the financial aid

system, whether a given student would be considered low income or not for this analysis is related to that student’s dependency status for determining eligibility for financial aid. For financially dependent students, their parents’ incomes and financial circumstances determine their

eligibility regardless of whether or not their parents actually provide any financial support. For

financially independent students, only the incomes of the students and their spouses are used to

determine eligibility. Parents’ income is not taken into account, even if the parents provide financial support.

From a financial aid perspective, there are three distinct groups of undergraduates: dependent students; independent students without dependents (spouses are not considered dependents);

and independent students with dependents of their own. Each group is profiled separately here.

About one-half (49 percent) of all undergraduates were dependent, but a relatively small proportion of all undergraduates were dependents from low-income families (8 percent) (figure 1). The

other half of the undergraduate population was about evenly divided between independents without and with dependents (26 and 25 percent, respectively). Independent students were more likely

than dependent students to be low income because their parents’ income is not included in their

family income. Of the entire undergraduate population, 8 percent were low-income dependents, 8
Profile of Low-Income Undergraduates

6

Table 1—Percentage of undergraduates who were from low-income families, by dependency status and 

Table 1—selected student characteristics: 1995–96

Dependency status

Independent, 

without Independent, 

Total Dependent dependents with dependents

 Total 26.4 16.8 31.4 40.3 

Gender

 Male 24.4 16.5 35.4 31.1 

 Female 28.0 17.1 28.3 44.9 

Age

 Less than 24 years 22.2 16.8 58.6 78.6 

 24–29 years 40.4 (*) 37.4 46.2 

 30 years or older 25.4 (*) 20.8 29.3 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 20.7 10.2 28.5 34.7 

 Black, non-Hispanic 42.7 35.1 39.9 52.1 

 Hispanic 40.1 35.8 38.3 48.2 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 34.0 29.7 38.9 42.2 

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 42.2 34.9 53.5 43.1 

Marital status

 Separated or not married 28.2 16.8 40.0 56.7 

 Married 19.7 (*) 14.3 23.6 

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 22.8 16.8 31.4 27.9 

 Single parent 55.5 (*) (*) 55.5 

Parents’ education

 Less than high school 37.6 55.0 25.0 37.8 

 High school 30.5 23.2 32.4 38.8 

 At least some college 22.1 12.0 35.0 45.3 

Institution type

 Public 4-year 24.1 15.3 38.9 39.5 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 21.3 15.7 32.9 30.2 

 Public 2-year 25.7 17.1 23.8 37.8 

 Private, for-profit 47.9 31.9 46.6 59.3 

Delay in postsecondary enrollment

 No delay 19.8 14.5 27.0 34.6 

 1 year 31.7 21.6 31.1 46.6 

 2 years or more 31.2 22.9 25.1 37.9 

Attendance pattern

 Full-time, full-year, one institution 25.3 15.6 51.3 55.1 

 Part-time, full-year, one institution 24.7 17.7 23.4 33.5 
Profile of Low-Income Undergraduates

7

Table 1—Percentage of undergraduates who were from low-income families, by dependency status and 

Table 1—selected student characteristics: 1995–96—Continued

Dependency status

Independent, 

without Independent, 

Total Dependent dependents with dependents

Housing status

 On-campus 18.3 14.2 64.3 59.8 

 Off-campus 27.9 15.4 28.0 37.4 

 With parents or relatives 27.2 19.7 47.9 67.2 

Primary role while enrolled

 Not working 30.4 17.9 35.5 51.3 

 Student working to meet expenses 23.7 13.0 39.0 53.9 

 Employee enrolled in classes 15.8 13.3 12.9 19.5 

*Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Figure 1—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by income and dependency status: 1995–96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
Profile of Low-Income Undergraduates

8

percent were low-income independents without dependents, and 10 percent were low-income

independents with dependents.

Dependents

Undergraduates less than 24 years of age are normally considered financially dependent on

their parents for the purpose of determining financial aid eligibility. The main exceptions are

married students and students with dependents of their own. Both types of students are automatically considered independent even if they are less than 24 years old, but there are relatively few

of them. In 1995–96, 96 percent of 18-year-olds and 89 percent of 19- to 23-year-olds were considered dependent.5

Overall, 17 percent of all dependent students came from low-income families (low-income

would be less than about $19,000 for a family of four, for example), but there was substantial

variation by race/ethnicity and parents’ education (table 1). Dependent students from minority

racial/ethnic groups were much more likely than white, non-Hispanics to be low income (30 to

36 percent versus 10 percent). There was an inverse relationship between the level of parents’

education and the percentage of students who were low income. Fifty-five percent of students

whose parents both had less than a high school diploma were low income, while 23 percent of

those with at least one parent who had finished high school and 12 percent with at least one parent who had attended college were low income.

Among dependent undergraduates, low-income status does not appear to have a major effect on where they enroll, with low-income and not-low-income students about as likely to attend

public or private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions and public 2-year institutions (table 2). Lowincome dependents, however, were slightly less likely than their not-low-income counterparts to

attend full time, full year and more likely to delay their enrollment after high school graduation.

Independents Without Dependents

Undergraduates 24 years or older are considered financially independent for purposes of

determining their eligibility for financial aid regardless of their parents’ incomes and assets and

whether or not their parents provide them with any financial assistance. Undergraduates who are

married are also considered independent, regardless of their age (but their spouses are not considered their dependents for financial aid purposes).6 A spouse’s income counts toward the

 

5Ibid.

6Ibid. The 26 percent of all undergraduates who were classified as independents without dependents consisted of 17 percent single and 9 percent married.
Profile of Low-Income Undergraduates

9

Table 2—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to selected characteristics, by income and 

Table 2—dependency status: 1995–96

Low-income Not-low-income

Inde- Inde- Inde- Inde-

 pendent, pendent, pendent, pendent,

Depend- without with Depend- without with

Total Total ent dependents dependents Total ent dependents dependents

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Gender

 Male 43.2 39.8 46.4 50.0 25.7 44.4 47.6 41.8 38.6 

 Female 56.8 60.2 53.6 50.4 74.3 55.6 52.4 58.2 61.5 

Age

 Less than 24 years 54.7 46.0 100.0 15.6 26.2 57.8 100.0 5.1 4.8 

 24 to 29 years 18.3 28.0 (*) 53.6 30.0 14.8 (*) 41.2 23.6 

 30 years or older 27.1 26.0 (*) 30.9 43.9 27.4 (*) 53.8 71.6 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 70.5 55.2 44.1 67.0 54.6 76.0 78.1 77.0 68.9 

 Black, non-Hispanic 12.3 19.9 20.2 13.5 24.9 9.5 7.5 9.3 15.4 

 Hispanic 10.4 15.8 21.8 10.3 15.4 8.5 7.9 7.6 11.1 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 5.8 7.5 12.2 7.7 3.5 5.2 5.8 5.5 3.2 

 American Indian/

 Alaskan Native 1.0 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.4 

Marital status

 Separated or not married 79.0 84.4 100.0 84.8 70.9 77.1 100.0 58.2 36.6 

 Married 21.0 15.6 (*) 15.2 29.1 22.9 (*) 41.8 63.4 

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 89.0 76.9 100.0 100.0 38.2 93.4 100.0 100.0 66.6 

 Single parent 11.0 23.1 (*) (*) 61.8 6.6 (*) (*) 33.5 

Parents’ education

 Less than high school 7.6 10.9 11.7 8.2 12.3 6.5 2.0 12.1 14.2 

 High school 37.0 42.7 40.8 41.2 45.8 35.0 27.4 42.1 50.5 

 At least some college 55.3 46.4 47.4 50.6 41.9 58.5 70.6 45.9 35.3 

Institution type

 Public 4-year 30.3 27.6 35.1 32.8 16.9 31.3 39.5 23.7 17.5 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 14.2 11.5 17.3 11.0 6.9 15.2 18.9 10.3 10.7 

 Public 2-year 43.2 42.0 33.5 38.5 52.0 43.6 32.9 56.4 57.8 

 Private, for-profit 5.3 9.6 5.9 8.2 13.9 3.8 2.6 4.3 6.5 

 Other 7.0 9.4 8.1 9.5 10.2 6.2 6.1 5.3 7.5 

Delay in postsecondary enrollment

 No delay 67.9 57.2 80.9 53.8 38.2 71.2 87.6 53.2 43.9 

 1 year delay 11.4 15.3 13.8 12.7 18.7 10.2 9.2 10.3 13.0 

 2 years or more 20.7 27.5 5.3 33.5 43.2 18.6 3.3 36.5 43.0 

All undergraduates
Profile of Low-Income Undergraduates

10

Table 2—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to selected characteristics, by income and 

Table 2—dependency status: 1995–96—Continued

Low-income Not-low-income

Inde- Inde- Inde- Independent, pendent, pendent, pendent,

Depend- without with Depend- without with

Total Total ent dependents dependents Total ent dependents dependents

Attendance pattern

 Full-time, full-year, one 

 institution 35.9 34.4 50.4 30.7 24.2 36.4 54.9 13.4 13.2 

 Part-time, full-year, one

 institution 22.8 21.3 16.4 22.4 24.5 23.3 15.4 33.8 32.6 

 Other 41.3 44.3 33.3 46.9 51.3 40.3 29.7 52.8 54.3 

Housing status

 On-campus 13.8 9.5 21.5 5.7 2.6 15.3 26.4 1.5 1.2 

 Off-campus 61.1 64.6 31.2 75.4 83.5 59.8 34.6 89.1 94.3 

 With parents or relatives 25.2 25.9 47.3 18.9 13.9 24.9 39.0 9.4 4.6 

Primary role while enrolled

 Not working 32.2 41.0 40.7 37.8 44.0 29.4 32.0 26.7 25.8 

 Student working to meet 

 expenses 42.8 42.5 51.4 44.4 33.9 42.9 59.1 26.9 17.9 

 Employee enrolled in school 25.0 16.5 7.9 17.8 22.2 27.6 8.9 46.4 56.3 

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Gender

 Male 45.4 41.6 44.4 51.9 25.7 46.7 47.2 44.0 44.0 

 Female 54.6 58.4 55.7 48.1 74.3 53.3 52.8 56.0 56.0 

Age

 Less than 24 years 79.4 61.2 100.0 24.4 32.6 85.5 100.0 12.0 8.2 

 24 to 29 years 10.8 23.1 (*) 54.4 30.2 6.6 (*) 48.5 31.6 

 30 years or older 9.9 15.7 (*) 21.3 37.2 7.9 (*) 39.6 60.2 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 72.4 53.9 46.1 67.6 52.8 78.6 79.8 76.1 69.0 

 Black, non-Hispanic 10.6 18.4 19.2 11.8 24.2 8.0 7.1 9.1 17.1 

 Hispanic 9.3 17.2 19.9 12.5 17.5 6.6 6.2 8.3 9.7 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 6.7 8.7 13.4 6.3 3.0 6.1 6.4 6.0 2.2 

 American Indian/

 Alaskan Native 1.0 1.9 1.5 1.8 2.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 2.0 

Marital status

 Separated or not married 90.6 88.3 100.0 84.1 72.2 91.4 100.0 55.7 35.1 

 Married 9.4 11.7 (*) 15.9 27.8 8.7 (*) 44.3 64.9 

Single parent status

 Not a single parent 94.3 83.7 100.0 100.0 37.5 97.9 100.0 100.0 71.3 

 Single parent 5.7 16.4 (*) (*) 62.5 2.1 (*) (*) 28.8 

Full-time, full-year undergraduates
Profile of Low-Income Undergraduates

11

Table 2—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to selected characteristics, by income and 

Table 2—dependency status: 1995–96—Continued

Low-income Not-low-income

Inde- Inde- Inde- Independent, pendent, pendent, pendent,

Depend- without with Depend- without with

Total Total ent dependents dependents Total ent dependents dependents

Parents’ education

 Less than high school 4.5 9.2 9.9 7.3 10.0 3.0 1.5 11.0 11.5 

 High school 32.6 43.6 42.6 42.7 46.3 28.8 26.0 37.2 50.9 

 At least some college 62.9 47.2 47.5 49.9 43.7 68.2 72.5 51.8 37.6 

Institution type

 Public 4-year 47.7 43.8 48.6 50.4 28.2 49.0 51.7 41.1 27.3 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 23.9 19.6 25.4 16.9 12.0 25.4 27.4 16.0 14.5 

 Public 2-year 20.3 22.6 19.3 18.5 33.1 19.4 17.8 25.4 31.4 

 Private, for-profit 5.3 10.1 4.7 9.6 20.0 3.7 2.0 10.0 15.9 

 Other 2.9 4.0 2.0 4.7 6.8 2.5 1.2 8.0 10.9 

Delay in postsecondary enrollment

 No delay 82.4 67.4 87.3 57.6 41.8 86.8 93.4 56.0 46.3 

 1 year delay 7.5 12.4 8.7 11.0 20.1 6.0 5.1 11.2 11.1 

 2 years or more 10.1 20.2 3.9 31.4 38.1 7.2 1.5 32.8 42.6 

Housing status

 On-campus 28.7 19.9 32.3 12.6 5.8 31.7 37.3 3.3 2.1 

 Off-campus 43.1 51.9 26.2 69.6 77.9 40.2 30.6 87.6 92.2 

 With parents or relatives 28.2 28.3 41.5 17.8 16.4 28.1 32.1 9.2 5.8 

Primary role while enrolled

 Not working 36.2 42.1 41.0 39.3 46.9 34.4 33.8 33.5 42.4 

 Student working to meet 

 expenses 57.0 51.2 54.4 56.1 40.4 58.7 62.5 51.6 26.7 

 Employee enrolled in school 6.8 6.8 4.6 4.7 12.7 6.8 3.7 14.9 30.9 

*Not applicable.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Columns for each characteristic sum to 100.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

student’s family income. Under limited circumstances, single undergraduates less than 24 years

old can be considered independent—if they are military veterans, wards of the court, or if both

parents are deceased and they have no legal guardian.7 Low-income independents without dependents are those who have incomes of less than about $9,600 if single or $12,500 if married.

 

7Ibid.
Profile of Low-Income Undergraduates

12

Independents without dependents were more likely than dependents to be low income (31

percent versus 17 percent) (table 1). As was the case with dependents, minorities were more

likely than white, non-Hispanics to be low income. Unlike dependents, however, there was no

strong relationship between parents’ education and low-income status.8

Rather than reflecting a disadvantaged family background, low-income status for independents without dependents is closely related to the student’s marital status, age, and employment

and enrollment status. Independents without dependents were much more likely to be low income if they were single or separated than if they were married (40 percent versus 14 percent),

probably at least in part because there was no spousal income to contribute to the family income.

The likelihood of being low income declined with age (from 59 percent of those less than 24

years old to 37 percent of those 24–29 years old to 21 percent of those 30 years or older). This

can be explained by the fact that older students are more likely to be married or to have greater

earning potential if employed while enrolled. In addition, low-income status was related to the

priority that students gave to studying versus working. About one-third (36 percent) of the independents without dependents who were not working and 39 percent of those who worked but

considered their primary role to be that of a student were low income. A much lower percentage

of those whose primary role was as an employee were low income (13 percent). About one-half

(51 percent) of those who enrolled full time, full year were low income.

Compared with their not-low-income counterparts, low-income independents without dependents were more likely to be male, less than 30 years old, and single (table 2). They were also

more likely to be enrolled full time, full year, and not to work (or if they did work, to consider

themselves primarily students rather than employees).9

Independents With Dependents

Undergraduates with dependents are considered financially independent of their parents regardless of their age. This category includes students (single or married) with children or others

who are financially dependent on them. Spouses are not considered dependents, and spouses’ incomes are included in the calculation of family income.

Independents with dependents were the most likely group of undergraduates to be low income (40 percent compared with 17 percent of dependents and 31 percent of independents with-

 

8The only statistically significant difference was less than high school versus some college.

9They were less likely to be enrolled in public 2-year institutions, which might at first be unexpected because of the lower price

of attending a public 2-year institution. However, many among this group may have low incomes precisely because they are enrolled full time, full year, which is not a common attendance pattern for students at public 2-year institutions.
Profile of Low-Income Undergraduates

13

out dependents) (table 1). Black, non-Hispanic and Hispanic students were more likely than

white, non-Hispanics to be low income. As was true for independents without dependents, lowincome status was related to family status, age, and primary role while enrolled (student or employee). Fifty-six percent of single parents were low income; the younger the students were, the

more likely they were to be low income; and they were more likely to be low income if they did

not work or if they worked but considered themselves primarily students.

Low-income independents with dependents differed from their not-low-income counterparts (table 2). Specifically, they were more likely to be female, less than 30 years old, and single

parents. They were also more likely than their not-low-income counterparts to be enrolled full

time, full year; to attend a private, for-profit institution; or to be not working or if working to

consider themselves primarily students.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15

Financial Need

Financial need is the difference between the price of attending a postsecondary institution

and what the student is expected to pay. Financial aid officers at each institution estimate the

price of attending by developing student budgets for various categories of students. The student

budgets take into account the amounts students must pay for tuition and fees, books and materials, and reasonable living expenses (based on whether the student lives on campus, independently

off campus, or with parents or relatives).

The expected family contribution (EFC) is determined by a formula that takes into account

family income and assets, family size, and the number of other college students in the family. For

independent students, the financial circumstances of the parents are not considered, only those of

the students and their spouses. To calculate financial need for a given student, a financial aid officer takes the appropriate budget and subtracts the student’s EFC. The EFC does not take into

account the price of attending the institution the student chooses. However, if a student decides

to attend a high- rather than low-priced institution, the student will have a higher budget, and

consequently there will be a greater difference between the budget and the EFC (that is, greater

financial need). There is no guarantee that this need will be fully met, however.

While the price of attending can be estimated in a relatively objective manner, developing

the formulas to specify the appropriate amount for a family to pay has been more subjective. The

methodology used to calculate the EFC has changed many times over the years as policymakers

have attempted to achieve simplicity and fairness and to ration limited student aid funds. Issues

related to fairness and simplicity include at what age students’ family income should not be considered in determining financial need; how the incomes of noncustodial or stepparents should be

treated when parents are divorced; what assets should be counted; what percentage of their assets

parents should be expected to contribute; and how much students should be expected to work.

Proposed changes in the calculation of the EFC have always been evaluated in terms of their implications for the amount of aid that would have to be disbursed and to whom.10

 

10For a discussion of these issues, see National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, Need Analysis: Does It Still

Work? (Washington, DC: June 1995).
Financial Need

16

Price of Attending

The price of attending (as represented by the student budget) has two major components.

One is tuition and fees and the other is expenses, such as housing, food, books, transportation,

and miscellaneous expenses.

Tuition and Fees

Charges for tuition and fees vary substantially by institution level and control. On average,

tuition and fees for students who attended full time, full year were highest at private, not-forprofit 4-year institutions ($10,500), next highest at public 4-year institutions ($3,400), and lowest

at public 2-year institutions ($1,400) (table 3).

Table 3—Average tuition and fees, student budget, expected family contribution, and financial need for lowTable 3—income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, and percentage with financial need, by type

Table 3—of institution and dependency status: 1995–96

Percent

Tuition Expected family Financial with

and Student contribution4 need5 financial

fees2 budget3 (EFC) (Budget-EFC) need

 Total6 $4,657 $11,579 $768 $10,876 99.3 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 3,404 10,745 760 10,051 99.2 

 Dependents 3,598 10,300 932 9,488 98.5 

 Independents without dependents 3,357 11,137 808 10,329 99.8 

 Independents with dependents 2,906 11,347 149 11,226 99.9 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 10,486 17,203 1,126 16,264 98.4 

 Dependents 11,494 17,917 1,503 16,703 97.8 

 Independents without dependents 9,896 16,745 797 16,012 98.9 

 Independents with dependents 7,628 15,237 223 15,014 100.0 

 Public 2-year 1,376 7,659 606 7,051 100.0 

 Dependents 1,226 6,409 637 5,768 100.0 

 Independents without dependents 1,820 9,025 1,128 7,897 100.0 

 Independents with dependents 1,264 8,112 264 7,848 100.0 

1

Averages computed including zero values.

2

Tuition and fees charged to the student, excluding those who attended more than one institution.

3

Student budget calculated by the institution, excluding those who attended more than one institution. Adjusted for attendance status. 4

Amount the family was expected to pay.

5

Student budget minus expected family contribution. In this table, the difference between the average student budget and the average

expected family contribution is not exactly equal to the average financial need because of missing data for each variable.

6

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Average1
Financial Need

17

Dependency status is not a factor in assessing charges for tuition and fees. Thus, any observed variation in average tuition by dependency status reflects a tendency on the part of the different groups to choose different types of institutions. Among low-income undergraduates

attending full time, full year, average tuition and fees for dependents were $3,600 at public 4-year

institutions and $11,500 at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions (table 3). Their counterparts

who were independent without dependents paid similar average amounts, suggesting that they

attended similar types of institutions. Independents with dependents, however, tended to enroll in

less expensive institutions than students with other dependency statuses in both the public and

private 4-year institutions: their average tuition was $2,900 at public 4-year institutions and

$7,600 at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions. Differences by dependency status at public 2-

year institutions were not statistically significant.

Budget

For students attending full time, full year, the total student budget, which includes living

expenses as well as tuition and fees, averaged $17,200 at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, $10,700 at public 4-year institutions, and $7,700 at public 2-year institutions. Within institution type, average budgets varied by dependency status, however. At public 4-year

institutions, independents with dependents paid a lower average tuition than dependents, but their

average budget was higher because of their greater living expenses. At public 2-year institutions,

the average price of attending was substantially lower for dependents than for either type of independent student, reflecting the fact that dependents in general were more likely to live with parents or relatives. At private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, there was no statistically significant

difference in the average price of attendance by dependency status despite the fact that independents with dependents tended to attend less expensive institutions—higher nontuition costs offset

their lower tuition.

Expected Family Contribution (EFC)

As described above, the EFC is calculated on the basis of students’ financial circumstances.

Where students choose to enroll and the intensity of the enrollment are not considered. Consequently, any observed differences across institution type reflect variations in the financial circumstances of the students who attend those types of institutions. Among the general

undergraduate population, EFCs tend to be higher for dependents than independents because parents’ income and assets are taken into account in calculating the EFCs of dependents. Within the

independent category, EFCs tend to be lower for those with dependents than for those without
Financial Need

18

them because of the greater financial responsibilities of those who have children or other dependents.

The situation is different for low-income students, however. Because the parents of dependents from low-income families are not expected to contribute very much for their children’s

education, the difference between the EFCs of dependents and independents without dependents

tends to be less. In both cases, the EFC consists primarily of the contribution expected from the

students themselves. Disregarding type of institution or attendance status (which do not affect the

EFC) low-income dependents had an average EFC of about $1,000 (appendix table A.3). The

average EFC for independents without dependents was about $930 (a difference not statistically

significant). Independents with dependents had the lowest average EFC ($600) because of their

need to support others. Independents with dependents who attended full time, full year were expected to contribute relatively little (a few hundred dollars) because they have little time to work

and others to support.

Financial Need

Financial need is calculated by subtracting a student’s EFC from the institutionally determined budget. This represents the amount of financial aid for which the student is eligible, although there is no guarantee that this amount will be made available. Among low-income

students attending full time, full year, virtually all had financial need, regardless of type of institution attended or dependency status (table 3). The average amounts these students needed were

substantial and varied with the type of institution attended and dependency status, ranging from

$5,800 for dependents at public 2-year institutions to $16,700 for dependents at private, not-forprofit 4-year institutions (figure 2).11 For each dependency status, full-time, full-year students at

private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions had the greatest need, followed by those at public 4-year

institutions and then those at public 2-year institutions.

Among low-income students attending part time, full year, generally at least 9 out of 10 had

financial need, with the exception of independents without dependents at public 2-year institutions. Among this group, 78 percent had financial need (appendix table A.3).

 

11The difference between the average student budget and the average EFC is not exactly equal to the average financial need

shown in table 3 because of missing data for each variable.
Financial Need

19

Figure 2—Average financial need for low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, by type of

institution and dependency status: 1995–96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Figure 3 shows, for each dependency status, the relationship between the average budgets

associated with attending the various types of institutions on a full-time, full-year basis and the

average EFCs for each family income level. At each income level, the difference between the average budget and average EFC is the average amount of financial aid for which students at that

income level would have been eligible (although not necessarily receive).

At an average-cost institution of each type, dependent undergraduates from families with

less than about $50,000 annual income would have been eligible for financial aid if they attended

full time, full year. Students from families with higher incomes would have been eligible only at

certain types of institutions. Among independent students enrolled full time, full year, those

without dependents would have been eligible for aid at an average-cost postsecondary institution

of each type if their incomes were less than about $30,000, and those with dependents would

have been eligible if their incomes were less than about $50,000.
Financial Need

20

Figure 3—Average expected family contribution compared to average full-time, full-year budget,

by dependency status and family income: 1995–96

NOTE: The horizontal lines on the figure represent the average student budgets for full-time, full-year students at the indicated

type of institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
21

Financial Aid

Given the level of financial need described above, one might expect that almost all lowincome students would apply for aid. Most did, but not all. Among those attending full time, full

year, 89 percent applied for aid (table 4). The percentage applying ranged from 78 percent to 96

percent, depending on their dependency status and type of institution attended.

Students who did not apply for financial aid were asked to state the reasons they did not

apply (they could supply more than one reason). Twenty-two percent reported that they did not

Table 4—Percentage of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year who applied for and received

Table 4—financial aid, by type of aid, type of institution, and dependency status: 1995–96

Applied Any Pell Work

for aid aid Grants grant1 Loans study Other2

 Total3 88.8 86.2 80.9 71.5 50.9 14.8 10.2 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 89.7 86.9 81.7 72.9 58.6 13.6 9.3 

 Dependents 87.9 84.7 80.1 67.3 47.7 14.8 7.0 

 Independents without dependents 89.6 86.9 78.6 72.7 69.2 10.9 12.5 

 Independents with dependents 95.6 94.0 92.4 90.2 71.2 15.2 10.1 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 93.9 89.7 85.6 70.3 64.1 29.7 11.2 

 Dependents 93.6 87.9 84.1 67.7 61.8 34.9 10.2 

 Independents without dependents 95.5 93.7 88.9 71.1 70.8 24.0 17.6 

 Independents with dependents 92.4 90.1 86.1 79.0 62.8 18.6 5.1 

 Public 2-year 84.1 83.0 77.8 69.7 20.2 12.9 10.0 

 Dependents 82.0 79.8 75.3 67.4 16.5 11.0 5.0 

 Independents without dependents 77.9 77.7 65.3 55.0 20.5 9.1 14.6 

 Independents with dependents 90.0 89.4 87.9 80.8 23.9 17.0 12.3 

1

Included in grants.

2

All other types of aid, such as assistantships, veterans benefits and military tuition aid, vocational rehabilitation, and JTPA. 3

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Type of aid
Financial Aid

22

apply because they believed their family income was too high to qualify for financial aid; 33 percent reported that they could pay without aid; 9 percent indicated that they did not want to incur

debt to finance their education, and 7 percent missed the application deadline.12 (There were too

few cases to determine if there were any differences by dependency status.)

Why would low-income students believe that their family income was too high to qualify

for aid or report that they did not need aid, since almost all had financial need as defined by federal financial aid program regulations? In some cases, the belief that their family income was too

high for them to qualify for financial aid may simply have been erroneous. Another possibility is

that their families’ financial circumstances changed between the end of 1994 (the year used for

determining the family income) and when they enrolled in 1995–96. Some families may have had

low incomes but substantial assets, making financial aid unnecessary. Finally, some independent

students might be considered low income according to financial aid rules, but received financial

assistance from their parents and therefore did not need financial aid in order to attend.

Types of Aid

The types and amounts of aid low-income students received varied by institution type, reflecting differences in the price of attending and in the availability of state and institutional aid.

The types and amounts also varied by dependency status, reflecting differences in students’ financial circumstances and in their EFCs. Because there is greater variation across institution

types than across dependency status, the discussion is organized by institution type and then

within institution type by dependency status.

The average dollar amounts of various types of aid are shown in the tables in two ways: the

average for students who received aid and the average across all students, including unaided

ones. Both types of averages are useful. The first type of average shows the level of support provided to low-income students who actually receive a given type of aid. The second type of average, by including all low-income students in the base, allows one to compare the relative

contributions of the different types of aid and other types of support toward the price of attendance.

Among low-income students who attended full time, full year, 86 percent received some

type of financial aid (table 4). At public 4-year institutions, 85 to 94 percent received financial

aid, varying with their dependency status. The range at private, not-for-profit institutions was 88

to 94 percent, and at public 2-year institutions, 78 to 89 percent.

 

12U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System, not shown in table.
Financial Aid

23

At public institutions (both 2- and 4-year), for each dependency status, low-income students

who attended part time, full year were less likely than those who attended full time, full year to

receive financial aid, reflecting the lower prices of attendance faced by part-time students (tables

4 and A.4). At private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, among low-income dependents and independents with dependents who attended for the full year, there was no statistically significant

difference between the percentages of full- and part-time students who received aid. This is at

least partly due to the fact that the price of attendance tends to be higher at private, not-for-profit

institutions, so more part-time students would qualify for maximum awards in federal programs

than would qualify at public institutions.

Most low-income students attending full time, full year (81 percent) received grants (table

4). The average grant for students who received grants ranged from $2,200 for independents

without dependents at public 2-year institutions to $7,900 for dependent students at private, notfor-profit 4-year institutions (figure 4 and table 5).

Loans were an important source of financial aid for low-income undergraduates as well, especially at 4-year institutions. Among those attending full time, full year, 59 percent borrowed at

public 4-year institutions, 64 percent at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, and 20 percent

at public 2-year institutions (table 4). For each dependency status, considerably smaller percentages borrowed at public 2-year institutions than at either type of 4-year institution (figure 5).

The amounts students borrow reflect not only their financial need but also the borrowing

limits established by the Stafford loan program (which is used by most borrowers) and students’

willingness to assume debt. The total limits for subsidized and unsubsidized loans in 1995–96

were as follows:

 Dependents Independents

1st year $2,625 $6,625

2nd year $3,500 $7,500

3rd to 5th years $5,500 $10,500

Reflecting the higher limits they were permitted, independent borrowers at both types of 4-year

institutions who attended full time, full year borrowed larger amounts, on average, than their dependent counterparts (figure 5 and table 5).
Financial Aid

24

Figure 4—Percentage of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year with grants and average

amount of grants for students with grants, by type of institution and dependency status: 1995–96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
Financial Aid

25

Table 5—Average amount of aid received by low income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, by type 

Table 5—of aid, type of institution, and dependency status: 1995–96

Work Work 

Total aid Grants Loans study Other3 Total aid Grants Loans study Other3

 Total4 $7,097 $3,922 $4,663 $1,397 $3,588 $6,116 $3,172 $2,373 $207 $364 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 7,195 3,658 4,710 1,510 3,257 6,256 2,988 2,759 205 303 

 Dependents 6,533 4,203 3,703 1,316 2,921 5,531 3,365 1,767 194 205 

 Independents 

 without dependents 7,666 2,815 5,454 1,923 3,713 6,660 2,213 3,773 210 463 

 Independents with

 dependents 8,170 3,602 5,376 1,509 2,890 7,677 3,329 3,826 230 292 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 11,221 6,822 5,060 1,343 5,156 10,060 5,840 3,245 398 577 

 Dependents 11,704 7,861 4,233 1,424 5,479 10,286 6,612 2,615 497 561 

 Independents 

 without dependents 11,437 5,521 6,571 1,179 4,966 10,718 4,909 4,653 283 873 

 Independents with

 dependents 9,128 5,074 5,515 1,097 — 8,226 4,368 3,463 204 191 

 Public 2-year 3,686 2,449 3,545 1,279 2,732 3,059 1,905 717 164 272 

 Dependents 3,067 2,536 ——— 2,447 1,909 327 99 112 

 Independents 

 without dependents 4,372 2,183 ——— 3,399 1,426 1,288 134 552 

 Independents with

 dependents 3,895 2,490 3,237 — — 3,482 2,188 775 249 270 

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate. 1

See table 4 for percentage of low-income undergraduates receiving each type of aid. 2

Includes unaided low-income students. Average total aid is not equal to the sum of grants, loans, and work study because

of missing data for each variable.

3

All other types of aid, such as assistantships, veterans benefits and military tuition aid, vocational rehabilitation, and JTPA. 4

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

all low-income students2 students with each type of aid1

Average for low-income Average for
Financial Aid

26

Figure 5—Percentage of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year with loans and average

amount of loans for students with loans, by type of institution and dependency status: 1995–96

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Low-income students who attended full time, full year were generally not borrowing as

much as they could have. Relatively few (14 percent) borrowed the maximum subsidized Stafford loan allowed for their dependency status and year in school (table 6). Among dependent students, most likely to borrow the maximum were those at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions

(37 percent) (figure 6). Considering all low-income students attending full time, full year who

took out Stafford loans, the average amount borrowed was about $4,500 (table 7).
Financial Aid

27

Table 6—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled full time, full year according to amount 

Table 6—borrowed through the Stafford loan program, by income status, type of institution, and

Table 6—dependency status: 1995–96

 Less Less

 than than 

 None maximum Maximum None maximum Maximum

 Total* 51.6 34.1 14.4 61.4 19.0 19.6 

Type of institution

 Public 4-year 43.2 44.2 12.6 60.6 21.3 18.0 

 Dependents 54.1 26.5 19.4 61.9 18.6 19.5 

 Independents without dependents 32.4 63.1 4.5 56.5 37.6 5.9 

 Independents with dependents 31.2 61.6 7.2 40.8 51.3 7.9 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 38.7 33.3 28.0 46.6 19.0 34.4 

 Dependents 41.8 21.3 36.9 46.8 16.9 36.4 

 Independents without dependents 29.4 52.8 17.9 47.1 36.5 16.3 

 Independents with dependents 41.5 48.4 10.1 41.3 42.9 15.9 

 Public 2-year 82.2 12.3 5.5 86.5 9.9 3.6 

 Dependents 86.0 8.9 5.1 89.5 6.1 4.4 

 Independents without dependents 79.5 6.3 14.2 77.6 22.4 0.0 

 Independents with dependents 79.9 19.3 0.8 75.6 22.3 2.1 

*Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Low-income Not-low-income

Work-study was used more often by dependent students at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions (35 percent) than by just about any other group of low-income students who attended

full time, full year (table 4).13 Relatively few low-income students received “other” types of aid

such as assistantships, veterans’ benefits and military tuition aid, and vocational rehabilitation or

JTPA funds (10 percent) (table 4). Among those who did, however, the average amounts received were often substantial. For example, at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, the average total “other” aid was $5,500 for dependents and $5,000 for independents without dependents

who attended full time, full year (table 5).

 

13The one exception was independents without dependents, 24 percent of whom received work-study. The apparent difference

was not statistically significant.
Financial Aid

28

Figure 6—Percentage of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year with the maximum Stafford

loan for their level, by type of institution and dependency status: 1995–96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
Financial Aid

29

Table 7—Average amount borrowed in unsubsidized and total Stafford loans by full-time, full-year 

Table 7—undergraduates, by income status, type of institution, and dependency status: 1995–96

Students Students Students Students

 with All with All with All with All

loans students loans students loans students loans students

 Total* $3,140 $530 $4,502 $2,181 $3,119 $475 $4,009 $1,546 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 2,888 490 4,476 2,541 3,072 526 4,030 1,586 

 Dependents 2,927 142 3,454 1,587 2,905 451 3,705 1,412 

 Independents without dependents 2,730 862 5,207 3,522 4,105 1,167 6,321 2,748 

 Independents with dependents 3,236 834 5,172 3,560 3,132 960 5,481 3,244 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 3,538 656 4,773 2,924 3,271 477 4,075 2,177 

 Dependents 3,561 281 3,820 2,223 2,996 378 3,793 2,019 

 Independents without dependents 3,543 1,440 6,307 4,453 4,283 1,465 6,835 3,613 

 Independents with dependents 3,500 873 5,511 3,225 4,196 1,294 6,276 3,686 

 Public 2-year 3,283 238 3,813 679 2,334 142 2,648 357 

 Dependents — 10 — 309 — 125 2,366 247 

 Independents without dependents — 708 — 1,288 — 269 — 675 

 Independents with dependents — 191 3,451 693 — 126 — 759 

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

*Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Low-income Not-low-income

Stafford

unsubsidized

All Stafford

loans

Stafford All Stafford

unsubsidized loans

Sources of Aid

Federal, state, and institutional sources of aid were all important to low-income undergraduates attending full time, full year, with 70 to 92 percent receiving federal aid (depending on

type of institution attended and their dependency status), 17 to 43 percent receiving state aid, and

17 to 55 percent receiving institutional aid (table 8). Institutional aid was particularly important

at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, where 55 percent of dependents received institutional

aid, as did 52 percent of independents without dependents and 40 percent of independents with

dependents.
Financial Aid

30

Table 8—Percentage of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year who received aid and

Table 8—average amount received, by source of aid, type of institution, and dependency status: 1995–96

Source of aid

Any Any Any 

federal state institu- Federal State Institu- Federal State Instituaid aid tional aid aid aid tional aid aid aid tional aid

 Total3 78.6 31.1 29.7 $5,353 $2,001 $3,119 $4,206 $623 $926 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 80.7 34.6 28.7 5,661 2,000 2,337 4,566 692 671 

 Dependents 75.2 35.1 32.5 4,724 2,274 2,803 3,553 799 910 

 Independents 

 without dependents 83.3 30.0 26.6 6,316 1,825 1,629 5,264 547 433 

 Independents with

 dependents 92.0 41.7 21.3 6,847 1,543 1,872 6,302 643 399 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 79.3 41.1 51.8 7,032 2,428 5,487 5,574 998 2,840 

 Dependents 76.6 40.0 54.9 6,742 2,343 6,618 5,161 937 3,631 

 Independents 

 without dependents 83.1 42.7 52.2 7,855 2,611 3,944 6,527 1,114 2,057 

 Independents with

 dependents 83.7 43.1 39.6 6,785 2,449 2,727 5,677 1,055 1,079 

 Public 2-year 74.9 24.8 20.7 3,178 1,045 759 2,379 259 157 

 Dependents 71.9 22.3 23.4 2,593 1,272 874 1,863 283 205 

 Independents 

 without dependents 70.0 17.4 16.6 3,446 — — 2,413 217 182 

 Independents with

 dependents 80.8 31.9 20.4 3,573 $818 — 2,887 261 94 

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate. 1

See table 4 for percentage of low-income undergraduates receiving each type of aid.

2

Includes unaided low-income students. 

3

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

dents with each type of aid1

Average for all

low-income students2

Average for low-income stuRelative Importance of Grants and Loans

For low-income students attending full time, full year who received financial aid, that aid

(grants, loans, work-study, and other) covered from 59 to 72 percent of the student budget at 4-

year institutions, varying with dependency status, and generally less (49 to 53 percent) at public

2-year institutions (table 9). At the 4-year level, dependent students at public and at private, notfor-profit institutions had similar amounts of their budgets covered (64 and 66 percent, respectively), and in both cases 65 percent of their aid came from grants.
Financial Aid

31

Table 9—Total aid as a percentage of the student budget and grants, loans, and federal aid as percentages of 

Table 9—total aid for low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, by type of institution and 

Table 9—dependency status: 1995–96

All Aided Federal

students students Grants Loans aid

 Total2 52.0 60.4 59.6 32.2 71.9

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 58.4 67.1 54.6 38.2 71.9

 Dependents 54.3 64.1 65.3 28.4 64.9

 Independents without dependents 60.1 69.1 39.5 51.0 77.3

 Independents with dependents 67.5 71.8 51.9 42.3 81.4

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 58.3 65.1 60.4 31.5 61.1

 Dependents 57.9 65.9 65.4 26.2 57.7

 Independents without dependents 62.6 66.8 49.1 41.3 63.2

 Independents with dependents 53.5 59.3 59.9 35.4 70.2

 Public 2-year 42.1 50.8 75.3 14.0 77.3

 Dependents 42.6 53.4 82.0 10.9 76.6

 Independents without dependents 38.3 49.3 62.7 21.5 73.5

 Independents with dependents 44.0 49.2 75.8 13.0 79.7

1

For students with aid (86 percent).

2

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Total aid as percent

of student budget Average percent of total aid1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
33

Closing the Gap

There are two major ways to look at the financial situation of low-income students once financial aid is taken into account. One approach is to look at unmet need, which is calculated by

subtracting the expected family contribution (EFC) and financial aid from the student budget.

The difficulty with this measure of students’ financial circumstances is that it assumes that the

EFC is a measure of what families can afford, which may or may not be true, because, as discussed earlier, the EFC is a financial aid rationing device as well as an indicator of what a family

can afford to pay. The other approach is to look at net price, which is defined as the student

budget minus financial aid. This represents the amount of money that students and their families

have to come up with during a given year in order for the student to enroll.14 This section examines both unmet need and net price, but focuses on the availability of student earnings and assistance from families and friends to close the gap between net price and financial aid.

Unmet Need

For low-income students attending full time, full year, the average EFC was far below the

average student budget in 1995–96, regardless of type of institution or dependency status (table

10). Student financial need (calculated according to financial aid eligibility rules) averaged

$10,900 (ranging from $5,800 for dependent students at public 2-year institutions to $16,700 for

dependent students at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions). Some of this financial need is

covered by financial aid (overall, an average of $6,100). Unmet need, the amount left to be covered after subtracting both the EFC and financial aid from the budget, averaged $4,800.

Overall, 87 percent of low-income undergraduates attending full time, full year had unmet

need (table 11). Those at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions were particularly likely to have

a very large amount of unmet need: about one out of five had an unmet need of $10,000 or more.

For low-income students attending part time, full year, financial need is substantially less

than it is for full-time, full-year students (although 82 percent did have some unmet need). Because the EFC is the same regardless of attendance status, part-time, full-year low-income students have less unmet need primarily because the price of attendance is less (appendix table

 

14Financial aid awarded in the form of loans would be repaid at a later date.
Closing the Gap

34

Table 10—Average budget, EFC, financial need, aid, unmet need, and net price for low-income underTable 10—graduates enrolled full time, full year, by type of institution and dependency status: 1995–96

 Expected

 family 

 Student contribution Financial Total Unmet Net

 budget (EFC) need1 aid need2 price3

 

 Total4 $11,579 $768 $10,876 $6,116 $4,844 $5,443 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 10,745 760 10,051 6,256 3,903 4,487 

 Dependents 10,300 932 9,488 5,531 4,056 4,763 

 Independents without dependents 11,137 808 10,329 6,660 3,835 4,476 

 Independents with dependents 11,347 149 11,226 7,677 3,564 3,672 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 17,203 1,127 16,264 10,060 6,367 7,145 

 Dependents 17,917 1,503 16,703 10,286 6,622 7,633 

 Independents without dependents 16,745 797 16,012 10,718 5,444 6,030 

 Independents with dependents 15,237 223 15,014 8,226 6,814 7,012 

 Public 2-year 7,659 606 7,051 3,059 4,088 4,598 

 Dependents 6,409 637 5,768 2,447 3,354 3,962 

 Independents without dependents 9,025 1,128 7,897 3,399 4,871 5,627 

 Independents with dependents 8,112 264 7,848 3,482 4,367 4,630 

1

Student budget minus EFC.

2

Student budget minus EFC minus aid.

3

Student budget minus all aid.

4

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution. Averages computed including zero values.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

A.10). Average financial need for this group was $6,100, of which $2,400 was covered by aid,

leaving an average of $3,700 in unmet need.

The data on unmet need suggest that low-income students, whether they attend full or part

time, “can’t afford” to be enrolled. How do they do it? The best way to try to answer this question is to look at net price (the student budget minus financial aid) and what we know about

sources of funds to cover that amount, including work and assistance from families. Net price

represents what these students have to pay in the current year once financial aid is taken into account.
Closing the Gap

35

Table 11—Percentage distribution of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year according to

Table 11—amount of unmet need, by type of institution and dependency status: 1995–96

$1,000 $3,000 $5,000

to to to $10,000

None $1 to 999 2,999 4,999 9,999 or more

 Total* 12.7 8.7 20.1 17.7 30.1 10.6 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public, 4-year 18.9 12.1 19.7 16.5 25.4 7.6 

 Dependent 15.0 12.3 21.2 18.1 25.1 8.4 

 Independents without dependents 24.3 11.0 17.1 14.0 25.8 7.8 

 Independents with dependents 20.2 13.5 20.1 16.4 25.4 4.6 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 12.4 7.2 16.9 18.3 25.8 19.4 

 Dependent 11.5 7.9 19.0 21.2 19.1 21.2 

 Independents without dependents 16.5 6.0 18.5 11.0 33.7 14.3 

 Independents with dependents 9.7 6.6 7.0 18.2 38.4 20.2 

 Public, 2-year 7.9 7.0 30.4 18.7 32.4 3.6 

 Dependent 7.2 8.5 42.2 17.5 21.7 2.9 

 Independents without dependents 16.0 3.2 14.0 15.4 46.1 5.3 

 Independents with dependents 3.7 7.8 28.1 21.8 35.2 3.4 

*Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Net Price

Although students at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions receive more aid than those

at public 4-year institutions, the increased aid does not completely compensate for the higher tuition. For example, among dependent, low-income students attending full time, full year, the average net price at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions was $7,600, which was about $2,800

more than the average at public 4-year institutions ($4,800) (table 10). The difference between

the average net price for these students at public 2- and 4-year institutions was not statistically

significant. The higher student budget at public 4-year institutions was offset by higher amounts

of aid. Within institution type, the differences by dependency status were not statistically significant in most cases.
Closing the Gap

36

Work

A major source of funds to cover the net price appears to be work (assuming students’

earnings are going toward their own support). About two-thirds (68 percent) of low-income students attending full time, full year worked while enrolled, and among those who worked, the average number of hours worked per week was 23 (table 12). Some students also may have saved

summer earnings to help pay for their education costs, but no data are available on summer

earnings. (It would be difficult to estimate the contribution of summer earnings anyway. If students live at home during the summer, they could probably save a substantial amount of their

earnings, but if not, they would probably need most of the money they earned to cover their

summer living expenses.)

Among full-time, full-year undergraduates at both types of 4-year institutions, low-income

and not-low-income dependent students were generally similar in terms of the percentage who

Table 12—Percentage of undergraduates enrolled full time, full year whose parents expected them to work,

Table 12—percentage who worked, average hours worked, and average earnings, by income status, type of

Table 12—institution, and dependency status: 1995–96

Low-income Not-low-income

Percentage Average Percentage Average

whose hours whose hours

parents worked parents worked

expected Percent- per week Students expected Percent- per week Students

them to age who while who All them to age who while who All

work worked enrolled1 worked students work worked enrolled1 worked students

 Total2 50.1 67.8 22.6 $4,820 $2,889 48.0 73.6 23.0 $6,182 $4,217 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 46.9 70.7 21.5 5,062 3,236 44.1 71.2 21.8 5,038 3,300 

 Dependents 44.3 71.5 19.4 4,181 2,593 44.1 71.4 21.0 4,479 2,954 

 Independents without dependents (*) 70.3 22.5 5,653 3,750 (*) 74.5 26.9 8,693 5,879 

 Independents with dependents (*) 69.8 24.9 5,744 3,630 (*) 58.4 28.0 10,573 5,467 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 53.3 75.4 20.0 4,110 2,801 43.0 72.1 18.8 4,795 3,181 

 Dependents 53.6 73.9 18.9 3,320 2,187 43.0 71.3 17.3 3,441 2,257 

 Independents without dependents (*) 84.2 20.4 4,559 3,613 (*) 78.6 31.4 15,275 11,033 

 Independents with dependents (*) 66.9 23.3 5,856 3,470 (*) 81.8 35.0 19,942 15,388 

 Public 2-year 57.2 61.2 25.1 4,477 2,361 62.8 80.6 27.8 8,297 6,351 

 Dependents 58.3 69.2 22.7 4,565 2,745 62.8 85.1 26.4 5,492 4,493 

 Independents without dependents (*) 52.9 — — 1,418 (*) 76.9 30.6 — 11,633 

 Independents with dependents (*) 56.2 28.1 4,859 2,478 (*) 57.1 35.4 23,445 11,046 

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

*Not applicable.

1

For those who worked.

2

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

while enrolled

Average earnings Average earnings

while enrolled
Closing the Gap

37

worked, the number of hours worked per week, and average earnings while enrolled. However,

low-income dependent students at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions were more likely than

their not-low-income peers to report that their parents expected them to work (54 percent versus

43 percent). (The apparent differences in the work patterns of low-income and not-low-income

dependent students at public 2-year institutions were not statistically significant.) Low-income

students who worked while enrolled earned an average of $4,800, which represents a substantial

contribution to the net price.

Parental Financial Support

Despite the low-income status of their families, many dependent low-income students attending full time, full year received help from their families in paying for their education. Fortyfour percent of those at public 4-year institutions reported that their parents contributed toward

their tuition, housing, meals, or books, as did a somewhat larger proportion (61 percent) at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions (table 13). About one-third at each type of 4-year institution received allowances, and about half as many (17 percent) at public 2-year institutions did so.

Table 13—Percentage of undergraduates enrolled full time, full year whose parents made direct 

Table 12—contributions, percentage who received an allowance from their parents, and average

Table 12—allowance, by income status, type of institution, and dependency status: 1995–96

Direct Direct 

contri- Allow- (if (all contri- Allow- (if (all

bution1 ance received) students) bution1 ance received) students)

 Total2 35.3 20.3 $2,078 $326 70.4 33.1 $2,479 $748 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 34.4 22.5 2,043 368 69.2 37.2 2,623 907 

 Dependents 43.6 33.6 1,752 477 74.1 40.0 2,459 916 

 Independents3 25.7 11.6 2,810 268 20.9 9.0 — 816 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 46.0 26.7 2,149 421 85.8 37.9 2,575 892 

 Dependents 60.5 32.8 1,514 361 88.3 38.9 2,343 831 

 Independents3 23.3 15.8 — 518 31.3 17.9 — 2,127 

 Public 2-year 29.8 11.5 1,567 124 58.3 20.9 1,669 293 

 Dependents 41.8 16.8 — 168 65.8 24.5 1,653 343 

 Independents3 17.8 5.0 — 73 16.8 1.0 — 34 

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate. 1

Parents contributed toward tuition, housing, meals, or books.

2

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

3

Limited to students less than 30 years old with parents.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Low-income Not-low-income

for year

Average allowance Average allowance

for year
Closing the Gap

38

At all types of institutions, dependent low-income students attending full time, full year

were less likely than their not-low-income counterparts to report that their parents contributed to

their tuition, housing, meals, or books. Differences in the percentages receiving an allowance,

and if they did receive an allowance, differences in the average amount received, were generally

not statistically significant.

Independent students less than 30 years of age who had parents were asked about parental

support. Full-time, full-year low-income students in this category were generally much less likely

than their dependent counterparts to receive financial help from their parents.15

Students were also asked about types of support from parents other than tuition, room and

board, books and supplies, or an allowance, and the approximate monetary value of this support

(less or more than $1,000). Among those attending full time, full year, about 48 percent of lowincome students received such help (with 26 percent receiving $1,000 or less and 21 percent receiving more) (table 14).

Table 14—Percentage distribution of undergraduates enrolled full time, full year according to the level of

Table 13—other types of support received from their parents, by income status, type of institution, and

Table 13—dependency status: 1995–96

No $1,000 More than No $1,000 More than

support or less $1,000 support or less $1,000

 Total1 52.4 26.3 21.3 29.0 29.2 41.8 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 53.6 22.3 24.1 26.7 30.1 43.1 

 Dependents 44.7 27.2 28.1 20.6 32.7 46.7 

 Independents2 62.1 17.7 20.3 86.0 5.4 8.6 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 47.3 30.8 21.9 25.4 32.9 41.7 

 Dependents 38.2 36.3 25.6 23.3 33.7 43.0 

 Independents2 61.5 22.2 16.3 67.7 16.6 15.8 

 Public 2-year 50.3 33.9 15.8 34.3 24.6 41.2 

 Dependents 38.3 39.9 21.9 24.8 27.0 48.3 

 Independents2 61.9 28.2 9.9 84.4 12.0 3.6 

1

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

2

Limited to students less than 30 years old with parents.

NOTE: Other types of support refers to support from parents other than tuition, room and board, books and supplies, or an allowance.

Table limited to students who attended only one institution. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Low-income Not-low-income

 

15The difference in the percentages receiving allowances at public 2-year institutions was not statistically significant, however.
Closing the Gap

39

Loans From Parents

Among low-income students attending full time, full year, 23 percent of dependents at

public 4-year institutions and 20 percent at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions borrowed

from their parents (table 15). The average amounts they borrowed were $2,700 and $5,400, respectively. Since their parents had low incomes, the relatively large size of these amounts suggests that friends and other family members may be helping, that their parents have financial

resources (such as assets) not reflected in their income, or that their parents’ income had changed

since 1994 (the year considered for financial aid in 1995–96).

Table 15—Percentage of undergraduates enrolled full time, full year who borrowed money from their

Table 14—parents that they expected to repay and average amount borrowed, by income status, type of

Table 14—institution, and dependency status: 1995–96

Average Average Average Average

amount amount amount amount 

Percent borrowed borrowed Percent borrowed borrowed

who (if (all who (if (all 

borrowed borrowed) students) borrowed borrowed) students)

 Total1 18.9 $2,784 $527 22.2 $4,367 $969 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 19.4 3,006 582 22.7 4,007 907 

 Dependents 23.0 2,730 629 23.1 3,782 872 

 Independents2 15.8 3,395 537 18.7 6,668 1,244 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 16.1 5,103 820 20.8 8,317 1,727 

 Dependents 19.7 5,394 1,060 21.4 8,427 1,802 

 Independents2 10.0 — 413 8.6 — 250 

 Public 2-year 20.1 916 184 23.0 1,168 269 

 Dependents 12.4 — 83 25.7 1,199 309 

 Independents2 28.7 — 299 7.3 — 38 

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate. 1

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

2

Limited to students less than 30 years old with parents.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Low-income Not-low-income
Closing the Gap

40

Summary

The net price that low-income students pay for their education is the difference between the

student budget and financial aid. This represents the amount that students must come up with in

the current year to pay for their education (that is, excluding payment on loans that must be repaid in the future). Even for low-income students attending full time, full year, a substantial part

of this gap is met by student earnings while enrolled. These earnings do not cover the net price,

however. For dependent students, the amounts left after taking into account student earnings appear to be considerably higher than their families could afford to cover (or that data on parent

contributions suggest that they are covering), especially at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions (figure 7). How students cover these amounts is unknown. For independents without

Figure 7—Average amounts for selected components of price and sources of funds for dependent low-income

undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, by type of institution: 1995–96

NOTE: Averages computed using zero values. Average loan amounts are included in total aid. Average amount earned while

working goes toward but does not meet the net price remaining after aid.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
Closing the Gap

41

dependents, earnings cover most of the net price at public 4-year institutions, but the gaps at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions and public 2-year institutions are large (figure 8). Independents with dependents have a pattern similar to that of independents without dependents

(figure 9).

The actual contributions of parents and other family members are difficult to determine,

because families do not typically keep detailed records on this type of information, and it is difficult to recall months later in a telephone interview. In addition to the amounts reported as allowances, about one-third of all low-income students attending full time, full year reported that their

parents paid for all or part of their tuition, housing, meals, or books, but we do not know what

Figure 8—Average amounts for selected components of price and sources of funds for independent lowincome undergraduates without dependents enrolled full time, full year, by type of institution:

1995–96

NOTE: Averages computed using zero values. Average loan amounts are included in total aid. Average amount earned while

working goes toward but does not meet the net price remaining after aid.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
Closing the Gap

42

Figure 9—Average amounts for selected components of price and sources of funds for independent

low-income undergraduates with dependents enrolled full time, full year, by type of

institution: 1995–96

NOTE: Averages computed using zero values. Average loan amounts are included in total aid. Average amount earned while

working goes toward but does not meet the net price remaining after aid.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

this amount was. Since low-income independent students do not necessarily come from lowincome family backgrounds, their parents may have substantial resources.

As indicated in the Introduction, it is impossible to describe completely how low-income

students cover the price of attending. In conducting this analysis, the assumption had to be made

that the budget determined by the institution closely approximated the price of attending, and this

assumptions may not always be correct. In addition, information on scholarships from private

sources, employer aid, student earnings, and contributions from families and friends is all student

reported through telephone interviews, which allow only a limited time for gathering information. Individuals’ recollections of the exact amounts over a period of a year are unavoidably approximate, and therefore they are not asked about them in great detail.
43

Changes Between 1992–93 and 1995–96

Between 1992–93 and 1995–96, tuitions increased, financial aid eligibility criteria changed,

and unsubsidized student loans were introduced, all of which affected low-income students. The

specific impact of these changes on how low-income students who attend full time, full year finance their education is examined here. Independents with and without dependents were combined in table 16 to make the data for 1992–93 and 1995–96 comparable. This was necessary

because of the way in which spouses were treated for the purposes of determining eligibility for

financial aid. In 1992–93, spouses were considered dependents; in 1995–96, they were not.

Among low-income students who attended full time, full year, those who attended public 4-

year institutions faced higher average tuition charges in 1995–96 than in 1992–93 ($3,400 versus

$2,60016) (table 16). (At private, not-for-profit 4-year and public 2-year institutions, the apparent

increases in average tuition were not statistically significant.) Due to changes in the way that

EFC is computed (most notably, dropping the minimum student contribution), the average EFCs

for both dependents and independents tended to be lower in 1995–96 than in 1992–93. (The differences for dependents at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions and independents at public 2-

year institutions were not statistically significant.) The net result of changes in tuition, budgets,

and EFCs for full-time, full-year low-income students was an increase in average financial need

for dependents at public 4-year institutions and independents at all three types of institutions.

Average grant aid (calculated for all full-time, full-year low-income students, including

those who did not receive grants) increased for dependent students at public 4-year institutions

(from $2,700 to $3,400), but not for any of the other groups of students considered here. Between

1992–93 and 1995–96, the average amount borrowed (calculated for full-time, full-year lowincome students, including those who did not borrow) rose for dependents at public 4-year institutions (from $1,400 to $1,800) and independent students at both types of 4-year institutions

(from $2,200 to $3,800 at public 4-year institutions and from $2,800 to $4,200 at private, not-forprofit 4-year institutions). The only group for which the percentage who borrowed increased was

independents at public 4-year institutions (from 58 percent to 70 percent) (figure 10).

 

16Note that no adjustments for inflation were made in making comparisons between 1992–93 and 1995–96.
Changes Between 1992–93 and 1995–96

44

Table 16—Average tuition, budget, financial need, financial aid, net price, and earnings while enrolled for

Table 15—low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year, by type of institution and dependency

Table 15—status: 1992–93 and 1995–96

Financial Work- Net

 Tuition Budget EFC need Total Grants Loans study Other price Work

1992–93

 Total* $3,880 $10,457 $1,607 $8,962 $5,107 $2,940 $1,690 $208 $268 $5,367 $2,902 

Type of institution and

 dependency status

 Public 4-year 2,601 9,551 1,805 7,860 4,918 2,625 1,865 202 226 4,649 3,159 

 Dependent 2,636 8,924 2,044 7,125 4,514 2,747 1,371 216 181 4,416 2,559 

 Independent 2,581 9,924 1,662 8,300 5,158 2,552 2,159 194 253 4,787 3,525 

 Private, not-for-

 profit 4-year 8,784 15,320 2,148 13,437 8,672 5,433 2,447 379 413 6,662 3,045 

 Dependent 9,221 15,109 2,140 13,400 9,154 6,255 2,042 456 401 5,961 2,144 

 Independent 8,407 15,502 2,155 13,468 8,256 4,725 2,796 312 423 7,267 3,893 

 Public 2-year 1,158 7,125 1,083 6,043 2,881 1,930 550 169 232 4,255 2,597 

 Dependent 1,177 6,311 1,300 5,011 2,380 1,847 228 245 61 3,931 2,321 

 Independent 1,153 7,358 1,021 6,340 3,025 1,954 643 148 281 4,348 2,672 

1995–96

 Total* 4,657 11,579 768 10,876 6,116 3,172 2,373 207 364 5,443 2,889 

Type of institution and

 dependency status

 Public 4-year 3,404 10,745 760 10,051 6,256 2,988 2,759 205 303 4,487 3,236 

 Dependent 3,598 10,300 932 9,488 5,531 3,365 1,767 194 205 4,763 2,593 

 Independent 3,202 11,209 582 10,637 7,010 2,597 3,791 217 404 4,200 3,711 

 Private, not-for-

 profit 4-year 10,486 17,203 1,127 16,264 10,060 5,840 3,245 398 577 7,145 2,801 

 Dependent 11,494 17,917 1,503 16,703 10,286 6,612 2,615 497 561 7,633 2,187 

 Independent 8,991 16,144 568 15,614 9,724 4,693 4,178 251 601 6,422 3,553 

 Public 2-year 1,376 7,659 606 7,051 3,059 1,905 717 164 272 4,598 2,361 

 Dependent 1,226 6,409 637 5,768 2,447 1,909 327 99 112 3,962 2,745 

 Independent 1,472 8,453 587 7,867 3,451 1,903 966 206 375 5,003 2,092 

*Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Averages computed using zero values. Table limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Financial aid
Changes Between 1992–93 and 1995–96

45

Figure 10—Percentage of independent low-income undergraduates enrolled full time, full year who borrowed

through student loan programs, by type of institution and dependency status: 1992–93 and

1995–96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992–93 and 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Still considering only low-income students attending full time, full year, net price (the

amounts students have to pay after financial aid is taken into consideration) was significantly different only for independents at public 4-year institutions. For those students, it decreased from

$4,800 to $4,200 between 1992–93 and 1995–96, reflecting their increased borrowing. (Apparent

changes—generally increases—for other groups were not statistically significant.) The average

amounts received from work-study and other sources and the average amounts earned from

working while enrolled (calculated across all students) were similar in each of the two years for

both dependent and independent students at all three types of institutions. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
47

Persistence Among Low-Income Students

Many worry that low-income students may be forced to drop out or interrupt their education for financial reasons, and there is some empirical evidence for this concern. Among undergraduates who began their postsecondary education in 1995–96, students who were not low

income were more likely than their low-income counterparts to have attained or been enrolled in

1998 (71 percent versus 59 percent).

Persistence is affected by a variety of factors other than income. In order to determine

whether persistence is associated with low-income status independently of these other factors, a

multivariate analysis was conducted using a regression model.17 The dependent variable was defined as the likelihood of persisting (that is, either attaining a degree or being still enrolled) until

1998. In addition to low-income status, the model included a number of independent variables

that describe students’ background and enrollment characteristics. They are listed in table 17.

The first column shows the percentages of students who began their postsecondary education in 1995–96 who persisted through 1998. The second column shows the corresponding percentages after being adjusted for the covariation of the independent variables included in the

regression equation. Asterisks indicate when a particular group differs significantly from the

comparison group (shown in italics).

The results show that even after controlling for student background and factors likely to affect persistence, low-income beginning students still had lower persistence rates than their notlow-income counterparts. The unadjusted persistence rate for low-income and not-low-income

students were 59 percent and 71 percent, respectively. After adjustment, 64 percent of lowincome and 69 percent of not-low-income students persisted.

The model does not necessarily include all factors that affect persistence. However, of

those included in the model, factors associated with lower persistence rates for beginning undergraduates included being black, non-Hispanic (rather than white, non-Hispanic), being financially

independent for financial aid purposes (rather than dependent), delaying entry into postsecondary

education two years or more after high school, enrolling part time for the entire period (rather

than full time), enrolling first in a public 2-year institution (rather than a public 4-year

 

17See appendix C for details on the methods used.
Persistence Among Low-Income Students

48

Table 17—Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who attained a degree or were still

Table 17—enrolled in 1998 and the adjusted percentage after controlling for the variables listed in the table

 Unadjusted Adjusted Least squares Standard 

percentage1 percentage2 coefficient3 error4

 Total 67.73 67.7 80.05 3.60 

Gender

 Female 67.62 67.7 -0.08 1.27 

 Male 67.71 67.8 † †

Race/ethnicity

 Black, non-Hispanic 59.49 62.6* -5.28 2.01 

 Hispanic 68.63 70.5 2.69 1.91 

 Asian 74.74 71.5 3.66 2.87 

 Native American 56.80 59.5 -8.37 6.71 

 White, non-Hispanic 68.50 67.8 † †

Dependency status 1995–96

 Independents without dependents 46.87* 58.1* -11.94 2.64 

 Independents with dependents 49.47* 62.8* -7.23 2.29 

 Dependents 75.09 70.0 † †

Parents highest education

 High school diploma 63.91 66.5 2.74 2.74 

 At least some college 75.21* 68.9 5.07 2.76 

 Less than high school 58.43 63.8 † †

Delayed postsecondary enrollment

 Yes 53.67* 63.6* -6.50 1.77 

 No 76.89 70.1 † †

First institution attended

 Public 2-year 56.36* 62.2* -10.81 1.75 

 Public less-than-2-year 57.13* 65.2 -7.80 5.11 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 82.83 72.9 -0.02 2.04 

 All others 65.04* 71.5 -1.43 2.38 

 Public 4-year 81.16 73.0 † †

Attendance status 1995–96

 Always part-time 41.29* 53.3* -17.23 1.91 

 Mixed 69.28 73.1 2.58 1.77 

 Always full-time 75.15 70.5 † †

Worked while enrolled 1998

 1–14 hours 96.35* 76.7 4.58 2.39 

 15–24 hours 86.09 70.6 -1.50 1.81 

 25 or more hours 71.81* 61.6* -10.45 1.57 

 Did not work 85.98 72.1 † †
Persistence Among Low-Income Students

49

Table 17—Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who attained a degree or were still

Table 17—enrolled in 1998 and the adjusted percentage after controlling for the variables listed in the table

Table 17——Continued

 Unadjusted Adjusted Least squares Standard 

percentage1 percentage2 coefficient3 error4

Received student loan 1995–96

 Yes 75.08* 68.3 0.85 1.52 

 No 64.48 67.5 † †

Parents provided loan 1995–96

 Yes 72.48 67.2 -0.63 1.64 

 No 68.76 67.9 † †

Parents provided direct contribution 1995–96

 Yes 77.83* 69.2* 3.58 1.54 

 No 59.24 65.6 † †

Percent of poverty level 1994

 Low income 59.07* 63.7* -5.23 1.61 

 Not low income 70.78 69.0 † †

*p < .05.

†Not applicable for the reference group.

1

The estimates are from the BPS:96/98 Data Analysis System.

2

The percentages are adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table (see appendix C).

3

Least squares coefficient, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix C).

4

Standard error of least squares coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix C).

NOTE: The italicized group in each category is the reference group being compared.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study Data Analysis System.

institution), and working 25 or more hours per week while enrolled (rather than not working).

Beginning students who received direct financial contributions from their parents were more

likely to persist than were those not receiving this type of help.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
51

Summary and Conclusions

Students from low-income families typically need substantial financial assistance to attend

college. In 1995–96, 26 percent of all undergraduates were low income. Independents with dependents were most likely to be low income (40 percent), followed by independents without dependents (31 percent), and then dependents (17 percent). Among dependent students, lowincome status was related to parents’ education. Among independent students, however, there

was no strong relationship between parents’ education and low-income status. Instead, lowincome status for independents was closely related to marital status, age, and primary role (as a

student or employee). Independent students tended to be low income when they were not married

(and therefore did not have a spouse’s earnings to add to their family income) and when they

were primarily students (and placed a lower priority on working). In addition, the likelihood of

being low income decreased with age (as marriage became more likely and earning potential increased if the student was employed).

Virtually all low-income students enrolled full time, full year had financial need (that is, the

student budget minus the EFC was greater than zero). The average amounts were substantial,

ranging from $5,800 to $16,700, depending on dependency status and type of institution. A large

majority of these students (86 percent) received some financial aid (81 percent received grants

and 51 percent took out loans). On average, aided low-income students attending full time, full

year had about 60 percent of their budgets covered by aid. About 60 percent of their aid was in

the form of grants, and 32 percent in the form of loans. The rest came from work-study and

“other” types of aid.

Despite the usefulness of the concepts of need and unmet need for financial aid policy purposes, a more relevant number for the student is the net price, which is the difference between the

student budget and the amount of financial aid received. This represents the amount that the student must pay in the current year. (Loans must be repaid, but in the future.) A substantial amount

of the net price was covered by student earnings while enrolled, and parents do contribute, but

gaps remain. The students are enrolled, which means that they are either surviving on a lower

budget than estimated by their institution or have other sources of funds. For example, they might

actually be earning more than estimated (students often have numerous short-term jobs). They

might be able to save from summer earnings, or have savings accumulated before they enrolled.

Yet another explanation is that they have received more than estimated from their parents. Or,
Summary and Conclusions

52

they may be borrowing from sources other than student loan programs. Low-income independent

students do not necessarily come from low-income backgrounds, so their parents may have substantial resources and help pay.

Low-income students are at greater risk than other students of not completing. After controlling for student background characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, and parents’ education)

and other factors thought to affect persistence (dependency status, institution type, enrollment

delay after high school, enrollment status, amount worked, borrowing, and assistance from parents), low-income students who began their postsecondary education in 1995–96 were less likely

than not-low-income students to have attained a degree or certificate or be still enrolled.
53

Appendix A—Supplemental Tables

There is no table A.1 or A.2.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table A.3—Average tuition and fees, student budget, expected family contribution, and financial need for 

Table A.3—low-income undergraduates and percentage with financial need, by selected characteristics: 

Table A.3—1995–96

Average1

Tuition Expected family Financial Percent with

and Student contribution4 need5 financial

fees2 budget3 (EFC) (Budget-EFC) need

 Total $2,610 $7,293 $832 $6,763 88.9 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full year 4,657 11,579 768 10,876 99.3 

 Part-time, full-year 1,576 6,764 832 6,089 90.4 

 Other 1,353 4,248 885 3,476 78.9 

Type of institution6

 Public 4-year 2,618 8,803 854 8,071 95.3 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 7,823 13,442 1,025 12,595 96.1 

 Public 2-year 640 4,254 922 3,680 80.4 

 Private, for-profit 5,300 10,324 408 9,929 99.2 

Dependency status for financial aid 1995–96

 Dependent 3,588 8,473 1,012 7,828 92.4 

 Independents without dependents 2,490 7,189 931 6,519 87.2 

 Independents with dependents 1,885 6,384 598 6,067 87.4 

 Total7 $1,576 $6,764 $832 $6,089 90.4 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 2,332 8,936 854 8,177 96.4 

 Dependents 3,011 9,754 1,091 8,759 97.2 

 Independents without dependents 2,384 8,960 962 8,054 97.4 

 Independents with dependents 1,827 8,379 560 7,964 94.6 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 4,752 10,048 875 9,268 96.4 

 Dependents 4,959 9,828 1,176 8,752 99.6 

 Independents without dependents 5,191 10,911 868 10,057 97.7 

 Independents with dependents 4,079 9,184 662 8,711 92.6 

Part-time, full-year undergraduates6

All undergraduates

_______

55
Table A.3—Average tuition and fees, student budget, expected family contribution, and financial need for 

Table A.3—low-income undergraduates and percentage with financial need, by selected characteristics: 

Table A.3—1995–96—Continued

Average1

Tuition Expected family Financial Percent with

and Student contribution4 need5 financial

fees2 budget3 (EFC) (Budget-EFC) need

 Public 2-year $683 $5,253 $829 $4,622 86.8 

 Dependents 674 5,350 986 4,550 89.4 

 Independents without dependents 550 4,607 985 3,831 77.9 

 Independents with dependents 767 5,582 651 5,129 90.5 

1

Averages computed including zero values.

2

Tuition and fees charged to the student, excluding those who attended more than one institution.

3

Student budget calculated by the institution, excluding those who attended more than one institution. Adjusted for 

attendance status.

4

Amount family expected to pay.

5

Student budget minus expected family contribution. In this table, the difference between the average student budget and the 

average expected family contribution is not exactly equal to the average financial need because of missing data for each variable. 6

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

7

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended more than one institution; section for part-time,

full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

_______

56
Table A.4—Percentage of low-income undergraduates who applied for and received financial aid, by type 

Table A.4—of aid and selected characteristics: 1995–96

Applied Any Pell Work

for aid aid Grants grant1 Loans study Other2

 Total 74.1 67.4 61.8 52.9 32.7 6.9 7.6 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full-year 88.8 86.2 80.9 71.5 50.9 14.8 10.2 

 Part-time, full-year 70.1 62.8 57.6 48.2 24.5 4.9 6.1 

 Other 64.8 55.3 49.3 40.7 22.9 1.9 6.4 

Type of institution3

 Public 4-year 80.4 73.7 67.8 60.1 48.5 9.1 7.4 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 86.1 81.1 75.7 59.4 51.8 20.0 10.7 

 Public 2-year 61.2 52.6 48.2 38.6 9.8 4.0 6.0 

 Private, for profit 90.7 86.0 77.9 74.0 57.6 0.6 8.8 

Dependency status for financial aid 1995–96

 Dependent 77.6 68.5 64.3 54.5 34.1 11.1 6.2 

 Independent without dependents 69.6 63.2 54.0 45.0 35.6 5.0 9.2 

 Independent with dependents 75.0 70.1 66.3 58.2 29.2 5.0 7.3 

 Total4 70.1 62.8 57.6 48.2 24.5 4.9 6.1 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 76.4 67.9 61.5 54.6 46.7 6.1 5.1 

 Dependents 79.7 66.5 63.2 56.7 44.6 10.5 1.4 

 Independents without dependents 72.2 61.6 52.1 44.5 44.5 5.3 5.6 

 Independents with dependents 79.8 77.1 72.6 66.6 51.0 4.4 6.7 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 77.4 74.6 65.9 46.9 35.8 7.2 10.3 

 Dependents 85.2 81.0 74.1 58.2 46.6 13.1 5.5 

 Independents without dependents 67.4 63.3 50.1 31.2 29.5 3.4 14.0 

 Independents with dependents 83.5 83.5 78.6 57.3 35.4 7.3 9.5 

 Public 2-year 66.0 58.1 54.1 44.7 12.9 4.5 5.9 

 Dependents 60.7 42.8 40.5 30.2 5.0 3.1 2.6 

 Independents without dependents 57.6 51.7 43.2 33.2 11.1 2.6 9.6 

 Independents with dependents 73.9 70.4 68.0 59.5 18.3 6.4 5.5 

1

Included in grants.

2

All other types of aid, such as assistantships, veterans benefits and military tuition aid, vocational rehabilitation, and JTPA. 3

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

4

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended more than one institution; section for part-time,

full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

All undergraduates

Part-time, full-year undergraduates3

Type of aid

_______

57
Table A.5—Average amount of aid received by low-income undergraduates, by type of aid and selected 

Table 5.A—characteristics: 1995–96

Work Work 

Total aid Grants Loans study Other3 Total aid Grants Loans study Other3

 Total $4,958 $2,698 $4,185 $1,417 $2,717 $3,342 $1,668 $1,370 $98 $206 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full-year 7,097 3,922 4,663 1,397 3,588 6,116 3,172 2,373 207 364 

 Part-time, full-year 3,829 2,074 4,172 1,558 1,816 2,403 1,195 1,021 77 111 

 Other 3,021 1,505 3,362 1,364 2,080 1,672 741 770 26 134 

Type of institution4

 Public 4-year 6,248 3,082 4,457 1,497 2,980 4,607 2,090 2,161 136 220 

 Private, not-for-

 profit 4-year 9,096 5,479 4,859 1,311 4,223 7,377 4,147 2,515 263 452 

 Public 2-year 2,386 1,650 3,092 1,400 1,690 1,254 796 302 56 101 

 Private, for profit 4,816 1,994 3,949 — 3,465 4,142 1,552 2,276 8 307 

Dependency status for financial aid 1995–96

 Dependent 5,794 3,765 3,493 1,312 3,341 3,966 2,422 1,190 146 208 

 Independent without 

 dependents 5,241 2,231 4,940 1,512 2,947 3,311 1,204 1,760 76 272 

 Independent with

 dependents 4,058 2,149 4,090 1,536 2,027 2,843 1,425 1,194 76 148 

 Total5 $3,829 $2,074 $4,172 $1,558 $1,816 $2,403 $1,195 $1,021 $77 $111 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 5,766 2,380 4,739 1,585 2,847 3,916 1,463 2,212 97 144 

 Dependents 6,036 3,190 3,873 — — 4,016 2,017 1,727 157 115 

 Independents 

 without 

 dependents 5,436 1,786 4,865 — — 3,350 931 2,163 81 175 

 Independents with 

 dependents 5,965 2,489 5,081 — — 4,597 1,808 2,589 79 121 

 

 Private, not-for-

 profit 4-year 5,999 3,377 5,128 1,055 3,297 4,477 2,225 1,836 76 340 

 Dependents 5,770 3,905 3,265 — — 4,671 2,893 1,521 96 161 

 Independents 

 without 

 dependents 6,672 3,484 6,689 — — 4,221 1,747 1,971 28 476 

 Independents with

 dependents 5,557 2,931 5,385 — — 4,638 2,303 1,906 118 311 

All undergraduates

Part-time, full-year undergraduates4

all low-income students2 students with each type of aid1

Average for low-income Average for

_______

58
Table A.5—Average amount of aid received by low-income undergraduates, by type of aid and selected 

Table 5.A—characteristics: 1995–96—Continued

Work Work 

Total aid Grants Loans study Other3 Total aid Grants Loans study Other3

 Public 2-year $2,520 $1,722 $3,088 $1,658 $1,049 $1,465 $931 $398 $74 $62 

 Dependents 1,789 1,582 ——— 766 640 90 26 9 

 Independents 

 without 

 dependents 2,362 1,421 ——— 1,220 613 420 37 150 

 Independents with

 dependents 2,832 1,881 3,029 — — 1,994 1,279 534 123 38 

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate. 1

See table 4 for percentage of low-income undergraduates receiving each type of aid.

2

Includes unaided low-income students. Average total aid is not equal to the sum of grants, loans, and work study because

of missing data for each variable.

3

All other types of aid, such as assistantships, veterans benefits and military tuition aid, vocational rehabilitation, and JTPA.

4

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

5

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended more than one institution; section for part-time,

full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

students with each type of aid1 all low-income students2

Average for low-income Average for

_______

59
Table A.6—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to amount borrowed through the Stafford 

Table A.6—loan program, by income status and selected characteristics: 1995–96

 Less Less

 than than 

 None maximum Maximum None maximum Maximum

 Total 68.8 24.4 6.8 77.7 13.1 9.3 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full-year 51.6 34.1 14.4 61.4 19.0 19.6 

 Part-time, full-year 76.6 20.4 3.0 87.0 9.7 3.4 

 Other 78.3 18.8 2.9 87.1 9.7 3.3 

Type of institution1

 Public 4-year 53.1 39.0 7.9 69.4 18.9 11.7 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 50.8 30.1 19.1 58.4 17.8 23.8 

 Public 2-year 91.1 7.4 1.6 95.2 3.6 1.2 

 Private, for-profit 45.5 42.6 11.9 47.6 34.7 17.8 

Dependency status for financial aid 1995–96

 Dependents 67.9 18.0 14.1 71.1 13.9 15.0 

 Independents without dependents 65.8 29.4 4.8 86.7 11.2 2.1 

 Independents with dependents 72.2 25.5 2.3 84.8 13.2 2.0 

 Total2 76.6 20.4 3.0 87.0 9.7 3.4 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 54.9 40.8 4.3 77.0 18.1 4.9 

 Dependents 57.7 30.9 11.5 73.8 17.5 8.7 

 Independents without dependents 56.9 40.1 3.0 79.0 19.1 1.9 

 Independents with dependents 50.5 48.1 1.4 80.9 17.8 1.2 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 67.8 24.3 8.0 74.1 17.2 8.8 

 Dependents 60.6 22.4 17.0 67.7 13.5 18.8 

 Independents without dependents 71.9 21.7 6.4 77.9 17.1 5.0 

 Independents with dependents 68.1 28.7 3.2 76.0 20.4 3.7 

 Public 2-year 87.7 10.9 1.4 94.6 3.9 1.5 

 Dependents 96.0 4.0 0.0 93.3 3.4 3.3 

 Independents without dependents 88.9 8.1 3.1 95.8 3.8 0.4 

 Independents with dependents 82.5 16.3 1.2 94.4 4.7 0.8 

1

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

2

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended 

more than one institution; section for part-time, full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Low-income Not-low-income

All undergraduates

Part-time, full-year undergraduates1

_______

60
Table A.7—Average amount borrowed in unsubsidized and total Stafford loans, by income status and 

Table A.7—selected characteristics: 1995–96

Students Students Students Students

 with All with All with All with All

loans students loans students loans students loans students

 Total $2,843 $321 $4,083 $1,273 $2,960 $283 $3,841 $857 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full year 3,140 530 4,502 2,181 3,119 475 4,009 1,546 

 Part-time, full-year 2,843 222 4,139 968 3,002 189 3,993 521 

 Other 2,399 210 3,326 723 2,550 159 3,320 429 

Type of institution1

 Public 4-year 2,753 383 4,280 2,008 2,966 397 3,874 1,186 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 3,397 544 4,641 2,286 3,242 430 4,130 1,719 

 Public 2-year 2,730 83 3,245 290 2,278 52 2,627 126 

 Private, for-profit 2,856 868 3,900 2,126 3,032 1,039 4,184 2,194 

Dependency status for financial aid 1995–96

 Dependents 2,862 113 3,268 1,050 2,760 287 3,485 1,006 

 Independents without dependents 2,946 520 4,877 1,669 3,422 299 4,947 657 

 Independents with dependents 2,711 327 4,053 1,128 3,058 252 4,535 688 

 Total2 $2,843 $222 $4,139 $968 $3,002 $189 $3,993 $521 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 2,905 403 4,603 2,075 3,082 287 4,019 923 

 Dependents — 110 3,614 1,529 2,733 265 3,480 912 

 Independents without dependents 2,737 501 4,810 2,073 3,572 393 4,784 1,005 

 Independents with dependents — 463 4,910 2,429 2,924 174 4,321 823 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 3,600 459 5,314 1,713 3,650 486 5,295 1,371 

 Dependents — 144 3,471 1,369 3,416 348 4,489 1,449 

 Independents without dependents 3,708 704 6,814 1,914 3,851 604 6,030 1,332 

 Independents with dependents — 400 5,420 1,727 3,578 493 5,581 1,342 

 Public 2-year 2,489 87 3,156 387 2,505 72 2,854 155 

 Dependents — 0 — 79 — 86 2,278 152 

 Independents without dependents — 128 — 420 — 47 — 106 

 Independents with dependents — 111 3,069 536 — 88 — 225 

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate. 1

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

2

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended more than one institution; section for part-time,

full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

unsubsidized loans

Part-time, full-year undergraduates1

All undergraduates

unsubsidized loans

Low-income Not-low-income

Stafford All Stafford Stafford All Stafford

_______

61
Table A.8—Percentage of low-income undergraduates who received aid and average amount received, by 

Table A.8—source of aid and selected characteristics: 1995–96

Any Any Any 

federal state institu- Federal State Institu- Federal State Instituaid aid tional aid aid aid tional aid aid aid tional aid

 Total 58.1 18.7 18.8 $4,192 $1,617 $2,133 $2,437 $303 $400 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full-year 78.6 31.1 29.7 5,353 2,001 3,119 4,206 623 926 

 Part-time, full-year 51.8 16.4 17.6 3,739 1,083 932 1,936 177 164 

 Other 45.4 10.8 11.3 2,909 1,153 976 1,322 125 110 

Type of institution3

 Public 4-year 67.1 25.1 20.3 5,177 1,790 2,156 3,475 449 437 

 Private, not-for-

 profit 4-year 68.4 33.9 41.3 6,150 2,188 4,684 4,205 741 1,933 

 Public 2-year 40.8 12.9 13.8 2,416 810 430 986 105 59 

 Private, for profit 81.1 12.1 11.2 4,325 2,366 1,603 3,506 285 180 

Dependency status for financial aid 1995–96

 Dependent2 60.3 21.9 24.6 4,215 1,954 3,319 2,540 428 816 

 Independent without 

 dependents2 53.5 15.6 17.2 4,670 1,712 1,617 2,498 267 278 

 Independent with

 dependents2 60.3 18.7 15.1 3,818 1,220 1,009 2,300 228 153 

 Total4 51.8 16.4 17.6 $3,739 $1,083 $932 $1,936 $177 $164 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 61.8 16.5 14.5 5,316 1,409 1,510 3,287 232 218 

 Dependents 60.5 20.3 17.3 5,065 2,027 2,400 3,065 411 416 

 Independents 

 without dependents 56.0 13.8 10.6 5,108 1,230 1,312 2,858 169 139 

 Independents with

 dependents 70.4 17.6 17.7 5,674 1,136 — 3,994 200 196 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 56.4 28.4 29.1 5,095 1,734 2,830 2,875 493 824 

 Dependents 73.7 38.7 29.2 4,043 1,593 — 2,980 617 888 

 Independents 

 without dependents 40.8 22.7 32.5 6,340 1,760 3,348 2,589 400 1,090 

 Independents with

 dependents 62.2 27.7 25.0 5,041 1,854 1,849 3,138 513 461 

Source of aid Average for low-income stu- Average for all

dents with each type of aid1 low-income students2

All undergraduates

Part-time, full-year undergraduates3

_______

62
Table A.8—Percentage of low-income undergraduates who received aid and average amount received, by 

Table A.8—source of aid and selected characteristics: 1995–96—Continued

Any Any Any 

federal state institu- Federal State Institu- Federal State Instituaid aid tional aid aid aid tional aid aid aid tional aid

 Public 2-year 45.8 15.2 17.8 $2,649 $755 $322 $1,214 $114 $57 

 Dependents 31.6 9.5 17.0 1,942 — — 613 83 57 

 Independents 

 without dependents 34.9 8.8 18.9 2,684 — — 938 76 55 

 Independents with

 dependents 60.1 22.1 17.7 2,841 698 336 1,707 154 59 

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate. 1

See table 4 for percentage of low-income undergraduates receiving each type of aid.

2

Includes unaided low-income students. 

3

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

4

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended more than one institution; section for part-time,

full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Source of aid

dents with each type of aid1 low-income students2

Average for low-income stu- Average for all

_______

63
Table A.9—Total aid as a percentage of the student budget and grants, loans, and federal aid as percentages 

Table A.9—of total aid for low-income undergraduates, by selected characteristics: 1995–96

All Aided Federal

students students Grants Loans aid

 Total 35.3 53.6 62.7 28.9 72.4 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full-year 52.0 60.4 59.6 32.2 71.9 

 Part-time, full-year 30.4 48.4 67.0 24.5 72.3 

 Other 23.1 46.4 63.9 27.4 72.4 

Type of institution2

 Public 4-year 47.6 64.3 53.2 39.6 73.7 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 49.9 61.5 60.5 30.5 60.7 

 Public 2-year 23.1 44.0 78.5 11.4 67.9 

 Private, for profit 40.3 46.1 50.1 44.0 85.4 

Dependency status for financial aid 1995–96

 Dependent 38.6 57.6 68.2 25.0 70.1 

 Independent without dependents 33.1 53.9 50.2 38.8 71.1 

 Independent with dependents 34.5 50.0 67.6 24.7 75.2 

 Total3 30.4 48.4 67.0 24.5 72.3 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 41.0 60.4 49.1 45.3 79.6 

 Dependents 39.5 59.3 58.3 36.5 75.8 

 Independents without dependents 34.6 56.1 42.4 51.7 80.1 

 Independents with dependents 50.5 65.5 50.9 43.4 81.0 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 39.9 53.5 61.7 28.0 60.2 

 Dependents 43.2 53.4 69.2 26.9 74.3 

 Independents without dependents 33.4 52.7 51.5 31.3 49.1 

 Independents with dependents 45.4 54.3 65.6 25.8 60.2 

 Public 2-year 24.9 42.8 77.1 13.1 70.1 

 Dependents 17.7 41.5 87.4 7.8 64.9 

 Independents without dependents 20.1 38.7 65.7 15.2 59.1 

 Independents with dependents 31.7 45.0 78.7 14.0 76.5 

1

For students with aid (67 percent of all and 63 percent of part-time, full-year, low-income undergraduates).

2

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

3

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended more than one institution; section for part-time,

full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Total aid as percent

of student budget Average percent of total aid1

Part-time, full-year undergraduates2

All undergraduates

_______

64
Table A.10—Average budget, EFC, financial need, aid, unmet need, and net price for low income underTable A.10—graduates enrolled full time, full year, by type of institution and dependency status: 1995–96

 Expected

 family 

 Student contribution Financial Total Unmet Net

 budget (EFC) need1 aid need2 price3

 

 Total $7,293 $832 $6,763 $3,342 $3,488 $4,073 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full year 11,579 768 10,876 6,116 4,844 5,443 

 Part-time, full-year 6,764 832 6,089 2,403 3,705 4,355 

 Other 4,248 885 3,476 1,672 2,175 2,712 

Type of institution4

 Public 4-year 8,803 854 8,071 4,607 3,525 4,173 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 13,442 1,025 12,595 7,377 5,343 6,068 

 Public 2-year 4,254 922 3,680 1,254 2,450 2,996 

 Private, for-profit 10,324 408 9,929 4,142 5,683 6,045 

Dependency status for financial aid 1995–96

 Dependent 8,473 1,012 7,828 3,966 3,908 4,663 

 Independents without dependents 7,189 931 6,519 3,311 3,352 4,054 

 Independents with dependents 6,384 598 6,067 2,843 3,247 3,588 

 Total5 $6,764 $832 $6,089 $2,403 $3,705 $4,355 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 8,936 854 8,177 3,916 4,321 5,020 

 Dependents 9,754 1,091 8,759 4,016 4,802 5,737 

 Independents without dependents 8,960 962 8,054 3,350 4,784 5,610 

 Independents with dependents 8,379 560 7,964 4,597 3,404 3,782 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 10,048 875 9,268 4,477 4,847 5,571 

 Dependents 9,828 1,176 8,752 4,671 4,122 5,157 

 Independents without dependents 10,911 868 10,057 4,221 5,928 6,689 

 Independents with dependents 9,184 662 8,711 4,638 4,095 4,546 

 Public 2-year 5,253 829 4,622 1,465 3,160 3,786 

 Dependents 5,350 986 4,550 766 3,797 4,584 

 Independents without dependents 4,607 985 3,831 1,220 2,607 3,381 

 Independents with dependents 5,582 651 5,129 1,994 3,139 3,588 

1

Student budget minus EFC.

2

Student budget minus EFC minus aid.

3

Student budget minus all aid.

4

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

5

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended more than one institution; section for part-time,

full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

All undergraduates

Part-time, full-year undergraduates4

_______

65
Table A.11—Percentage distribution of low-income undergraduates according to amount of unmet need, by

Table A.17—selected characteristics: 1995–96

$1,000 $3,000 $5,000

to to to $10,000

None $1 to 999 2,999 4,999 9,999 or more

 Total 20.4 12.1 21.4 19.8 20.9 5.5 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full year 12.7 8.7 20.1 17.7 30.1 10.6 

 Part-time, full-year 18.0 9.6 16.4 26.7 24.9 4.4 

 Other 28.2 16.4 25.4 18.0 10.5 1.5 

Type of institution1

 Public 4-year 20.3 13.2 20.3 17.7 22.7 5.9 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 15.2 8.2 19.5 19.0 23.0 15.2 

 Public 2-year 25.7 14.4 24.0 20.3 14.5 1.1 

 Private, for-profit 4.7 4.2 16.1 23.2 39.6 12.3 

Dependency status for financial aid 1995–96

 Dependent 16.3 10.1 24.3 21.7 20.3 7.3 

 Independents without dependents 24.4 12.5 18.6 17.9 21.1 5.5 

 Independents with dependents 20.4 13.4 21.4 19.8 21.1 3.9 

Part-time, full-year undergraduates1

 Total2 18.0 9.6 16.4 26.7 24.9 4.4 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 16.6 10.5 15.7 18.4 30.5 8.3 

 Dependent 16.2 6.1 14.3 17.8 38.0 7.6 

 Independents without dependents 14.8 7.9 14.4 18.4 33.9 10.6 

 Independents with dependents 19.3 16.7 18.2 18.7 21.4 5.8 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 15.1 5.9 16.8 24.6 25.2 12.5 

 Dependent 11.5 5.6 27.6 29.0 16.4 10.0 

 Independents without dependents 12.2 6.1 10.1 21.0 31.2 19.5 

 Independents with dependents 21.3 5.9 16.7 25.5 24.5 6.1 

 Public 2-year 19.9 10.2 17.0 30.6 20.8 1.5 

 Dependent 15.7 4.6 16.3 37.2 22.6 3.7 

 Independents without dependents 27.7 13.4 15.2 26.2 16.1 1.5 

 Independents with dependents 17.5 11.5 18.4 29.7 22.6 0.3 

1

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

2

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended 

more than one institution; section for part-time, full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

All undergraduates

_______

66
Table A.12—Percentage of undergraduates whose parents expected them to work, percentage who worked, 

Table A.11—average hours worked, and average earnings, by income status, type of institution, and 

Table A.11—attendance status: 1995–96

Low-income Not-low-income

Percentage Average Percentage Average

whose hours whose hours

parents worked parents worked

expected Percent- per week Students expected Percent- per week Students

them to age who while who All them to age who while who All

work worked enrolled1 worked students work worked enrolled1 worked students

 Total 54.1 71.8 27.9 $6,122 $3,772 54.7 81.0 30.9 $11,793 $8,932 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full year 50.1 67.8 22.6 4,820 2,889 48.0 73.6 23.0 6,182 4,217 

 Part-time, full-year 61.2 75.4 30.2 7,488 4,840 69.0 89.2 35.8 17,580 15,157 

 Other 57.4 74.0 31.0 6,728 4,219 61.6 83.3 34.7 13,076 10,145 

Type of institution2

 Public 4-year 48.6 73.4 24.4 5,595 3,678 47.1 76.4 26.9 9,313 6,583 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 53.1 77.2 24.8 5,066 3,388 43.8 78.0 26.5 11,860 8,521 

 Public 2-year 61.1 74.8 31.0 7,241 4,640 68.9 86.2 35.0 13,557 11,107 

 Private, for-profit 50.2 53.6 30.3 5,564 2,313 62.5 70.9 32.9 12,153 7,601 

Dependency status for 

 financial aid 1995–96

 Dependents 54.1 72.8 23.7 4,359 2,729 54.7 78.6 25.2 5,203 3,804 

 Independents 54.4 71.4 29.8 6,898 4,219 59.9 83.9 37.5 19,461 15,328 

 Total3 61.2 75.4 30.2 $7,488 $4,840 69.0 89.2 35.8 $17,580 $15,157 

Type of institution

 Public 4-year 52.3 77.3 27.7 7,378 5,116 55.0 85.8 32.0 15,802 12,986 

 Dependents 46.4 76.3 23.6 4,917 3,407 55.5 83.3 26.1 6,801 5,365 

 Independents without dependents (*) 84.1 26.0 7,312 5,735 (*) 87.7 35.6 20,808 17,498 

 Independents with dependents (*) 68.7 33.1 9,383 5,340 (*) 88.2 38.2 24,984 21,460 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 69.2 84.5 31.8 8,578 6,281 52.5 92.8 38.5 26,576 23,895 

 Dependents — 69.9 27.5 — 3,364 52.2 85.7 26.8 6,660 5,359 

 Independents without dependents (*) 91.1 32.5 7,346 5,867 (*) 94.4 41.7 29,944 27,533 

 Independents with dependents (*) 86.0 33.4 — 8,368 (*) 95.8 42.2 34,761 32,763 

 Public 2-year 63.7 73.9 30.6 7,120 4,427 79.5 90.0 36.8 16,775 14,674 

 Dependents 66.2 75.6 30.3 6,918 4,703 79.5 92.1 33.5 8,340 7,543 

 Independents without dependents (*) 67.7 33.4 — 3,226 (*) 89.1 37.6 18,034 15,314 

 Independents with dependents (*) 77.3 29.2 7,122 4,914 (*) 89.1 39.5 25,337 22,171 

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

*Not applicable.

1

For those who worked.

2

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

3

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended more than one institution; section for part-time,

full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Part-time, full-year undergraduates2

All undergraduates

Average earnings

while enrolled

Average earnings

while enrolled

_______

67
 Table A.13—Percentage of undergraduates whose parents made direct contributions, percentage who 

 Table A.12—received an allowance from their parents, and average allowance, by income status and 

 Table A.12—selected characteristics: 1995–96

Direct Direct 

contri- Allow- (if (all contri- Allow- (if (all

bution1 ance received) students) bution1 ance received) students)

 Total 32.6 16.7 $1,755 $229 56.2 24.1 $2,353 $512 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full year 35.3 20.3 2,078 326 70.4 33.1 2,479 748 

 Part-time, full-year 31.2 13.0 1,308 139 41.2 13.6 2,546 315 

 Other 31.1 14.6 1,486 172 44.2 17.1 1,907 292 

Type of institution2

 Public 4-year 36.0 20.2 1,950 324 63.2 32.5 2,558 770 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 42.9 26.1 2,015 363 78.5 34.5 2,474 767 

 Public 2-year 30.2 11.3 1,011 100 41.8 12.6 1,686 187 

 Private, for-profit 19.3 12.7 2,335 181 35.9 12.6 2,377 236 

Dependency status for

 financial aid 1995–96

 Dependents 48.3 27.6 1,550 331 71.2 31.0 2,256 636 

 Independents3 23.1 9.6 2,098 166 13.0 4.1 4,410 163 

 Total4 31.2 13.0 $1,308 $139 41.2 13.6 $2,546 $315 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 36.2 15.0 1,691 220 55.1 24.0 2,700 594 

 Dependents 49.3 18.9 — 206 72.6 33.4 2,607 806 

 Independents3 31.3 13.6 — 225 19.3 4.4 — 169 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 38.5 22.2 1,639 162 49.4 20.1 2,213 379 

 Dependents 63.7 38.0 — 196 78.6 29.1 2,467 609 

 Independents3 26.5 11.6 — 145 16.0 9.4 — 120 

 Public 2-year 28.8 10.4 851 83 34.7 8.4 2,289 177 

 Dependents 47.8 16.0 — 107 57.4 15.4 2,387 340 

 Independents3 16.0 6.6 — 67 10.5 0.9 — 5 

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate. 1

Parents contributed toward tuition, housing, meals, or books.

2

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

3

Limited to students less than 30 years old with parents.

4

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended more than one institution; section for part-time,

full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Part-time, full-year undergraduates2

All undergraduates

Low-income Not-low-income

for year

Average allowance Average allowance

for year

_______

68
Table A.14—Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to the level of other types of support 

Table A.13—received from their parents, by income status and selected characteristics: 1995–96

No $1,000 More than No $1,000 More than

support or less $1,000 support or less $1,000

 Total 60.6 21.2 18.2 42.4 24.1 33.6 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full year 52.4 26.3 21.3 29.0 29.2 41.8 

 Part-time, full-year 67.2 16.8 16.1 53.8 19.0 27.1 

 Other 65.7 18.1 16.2 54.9 19.6 25.5 

Type of institution1

 Public 4-year 54.2 22.1 23.7 34.4 26.8 38.9 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 53.7 26.0 20.2 31.7 29.8 38.5 

 Public 2-year 66.3 20.3 13.4 52.4 20.1 27.4 

 Private, for-profit 71.4 16.2 12.4 62.8 14.6 22.6 

Dependency status for financial aid 1995–96

 Dependents 45.4 28.5 26.1 25.6 30.0 43.4 

 Independents2 69.8 16.7 13.4 86.6 7.3 6.1 

 Total3 67.2 16.8 16.1 53.8 19.0 27.1 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 61.8 19.6 18.5 41.2 21.2 37.6 

 Dependents 42.9 21.3 35.8 24.0 26.3 49.7 

 Independents2 69.0 19.0 12.0 76.4 10.9 12.7 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 62.1 12.9 25.0 62.5 11.9 25.6 

 Dependents 50.2 27.3 22.5 34.5 20.1 45.4 

 Independents2 67.9 6.0 26.2 93.3 2.8 4.0 

 Public 2-year 69.3 16.4 14.3 57.6 19.4 23.1 

 Dependents 45.5 32.6 22.0 31.2 29.1 39.7 

 Independents2 85.5 5.4 9.1 85.1 9.2 5.7 

1

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

2

Limited to students less than 30 years old with parents.

3

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Other types of support refers to support from parents other than tuition, room and board, books and supplies, or an 

allowance. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Table section for all undergraduates includes students who 

attended more than one institution; section for part-time, full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one 

institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Low-income Not-low-income

Part-time, full-year undergraduates1

All undergraduates

_______

69
Table A.15—Percentage of undergraduates who borrowed money from their parents that they expected to 

Table A.14—repay and average amount borrowed, by income status and selected characteristics: 1995–96

Average Average Average Average

amount amount amount amount 

Percent borrowed borrowed Percent borrowed borrowed

who (if (all who (if (all 

borrowed borrowed) students) borrowed borrowed) students)

 Total 16.6 $2,070 $344 20.4 $3,356 $686 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full year 18.9 2,784 527 22.2 4,367 969 

 Part-time, full-year 15.0 1,387 208 18.0 2,106 378 

 Other 15.1 1,440 217 19.4 2,387 463 

Type of institution1

 Public 4-year 17.6 2,718 479 22.6 3,772 853 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 14.2 4,561 649 19.9 7,706 1,532 

 Public 2-year 17.4 738 128 18.9 1,147 217 

 Private, for-profit 13.3 1,841 244 17.6 3,188 559 

Dependency status for financial aid 1995–96

 Dependents 20.2 2,431 491 24.9 3,460 863 

 Independents2 14.3 1,745 250 7.9 2,436 192 

 Total3 15.0 $1,387 $208 18.0 $2,106 $378 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 12.0 2,831 341 20.1 3,289 661 

 Dependents 19.5 — 576 27.6 3,415 943 

 Independents2 9.2 — 252 4.8 — 86 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 8.9 2,672 238 15.4 5,900 911 

 Dependents 9.5 — 142 27.0 6,287 1,695 

 Independents2 8.6 — 295 3.0 — 66 

 Public 2-year 17.7 561 99 17.6 1,135 199 

 Dependents 20.6 — 93 26.7 1,230 329 

 Independents2 15.6 — 103 8.1 — 66 

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate. 1

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

2

Limited to students less than 30 years old with parents.

3

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended more than one institution; section for part-time,

full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Low-income Not-low-income

Part-time, full-year undergraduates1

All undergraduates

_______

70
Table A.16a—Average tuition, budget, financial need, financial aid, net price, and earnings while enrolled

Table A.15a—for low-income undergraduates, by selected characteristics: 1992–93 

Financial Work- Net

Tuition Budget EFC need Total Grants Loans study Other price Work

 Total $2,463 $7,365 $1,414 $6,144 $3,218 $1,820 $1,136 $113 $150 $4,177 $4,171 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full year 3,880 10,457 1,607 8,962 5,107 2,940 1,690 208 268 5,367 2,902 

 Part-time, full-year 1,587 7,045 1,331 5,822 2,401 1,396 824 105 75 4,668 5,408 

 Other 1,712 5,027 1,310 4,030 2,119 1,158 826 45 90 3,003 4,623 

Type of institution1

 Public 4-year 2,037 7,970 1,703 6,427 3,863 2,013 1,527 146 177 4,110 4,056 

 Private, not-for-

 profit 4-year 6,317 11,767 1,790 10,234 6,372 3,937 1,890 262 283 5,416 4,040 

 Public 2-year 656 4,697 1,256 3,661 1,582 1,040 388 78 75 3,127 4,721 

 Private, for-profit 4,516 9,180 1,010 8,230 3,557 1,708 1,651 42 156 5,722 3,033 

Dependency status for financial aid

 Dependents 2,957 7,904 2,000 6,230 3,783 2,326 1,107 160 189 4,143 3,440 

 Independents 2,290 7,177 1,207 6,114 3,018 1,640 1,146 97 136 4,189 4,435 

 Total2 $1,587 $7,045 $1,331 $5,822 $2,401 $1,396 $824 $105 $75 $4,668 $5,408 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 1,711 8,176 1,597 6,672 3,383 1,691 1,465 119 108 4,790 5,146 

 Dependents 1,969 8,213 2,049 6,248 3,434 1,945 1,168 186 134 4,725 3,837 

 Independents 1,629 8,164 1,448 6,809 3,366 1,607 1,563 96 99 4,811 5,580 

 Private, not-for-

 profit 4-year 4,006 9,291 1,225 8,116 4,130 2,309 1,449 185 187 5,234 6,573 

 Dependents 4,347 9,101 1,645 7,543 5,155 3,319 1,466 224 146 3,967 6,807 

 Independents 3,897 9,351 1,090 8,299 3,801 1,985 1,444 173 200 5,639 6,499 

 Public 2-year 671 5,592 1,339 4,403 1,445 1,004 307 95 38 4,158 5,537 

 Dependents 686 5,830 2,644 3,379 1,019 822 97 90 9 4,812 5,235 

 Independents 667 5,528 988 4,680 1,559 1,053 364 97 45 3,982 5,621 

1

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

2

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Averages computed using zero values. Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended more than 

one institution; section for part-time, full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Financial aid

All undergraduates

Part-time, full-year undergraduates1

_______

71
Table A.16b—Average tuition, budget, financial need, financial aid, net price, and earnings while enrolled

Table A15.b—for low-income undergraduates, by selected characteristics: 1995–96 

Financial Work- Net

 Tuition Budget EFC need Total Grants Loans study Other price Work

 Total $2,610 $7,293 $832 $6,763 $3,342 $1,668 $1,370 $98 $206 $4,073 $3,772 

Attendance status

 Full-time, full year 4,657 11,579 768 10,876 6,116 3,172 2,373 207 364 5,443 2,889 

 Part-time, full-year 1,576 6,764 832 6,089 2,403 1,195 1,021 77 111 4,355 4,840 

 Other 1,353 4,248 885 3,476 1,672 741 770 26 134 2,712 4,219 

Type of institution1

 Public 4-year 2,618 8,803 854 8,071 4,607 2,090 2,161 136 220 4,173 3,678 

 Private, not-for-

 profit 4-year 7,823 13,442 1,025 12,595 7,377 4,147 2,515 263 452 6,068 3,388 

 Public 2-year 640 4,254 922 3,680 1,254 796 302 56 101 2,996 4,640 

 Private, for-profit 5,300 10,324 408 9,929 4,142 1,552 2,276 8 307 6,045 2,313 

Dependency status for financial aid 1995–96

 Dependents 3,588 8,473 1,012 7,828 3,966 2,422 1,190 146 208 4,663 2,729 

 Independents without

 dependents 2,490 7,189 931 6,519 3,311 1,204 1,760 76 272 4,054 4,935 

 Independents 

 with dependents 1,885 6,384 598 6,067 2,843 1,425 1,194 76 148 3,588 3,648 

 Total2 $1,576 $6,764 $832 $6,089 $2,403 $1,195 $1,021 $77 $111 $4,355 $4,840 

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 2,332 8,936 854 8,177 3,916 1,463 2,212 97 144 5,020 5,116 

 Dependents 3,011 9,754 1,091 8,759 4,016 2,017 1,727 157 115 5,737 3,407 

 Independents 2,143 8,709 788 8,015 3,888 1,310 2,347 80 152 4,821 5,568 

 Private, not-for-

 profit 4-year 4,752 10,048 875 9,268 4,477 2,225 1,836 76 340 5,571 6,281 

 Dependents 4,959 9,828 1,176 8,752 4,671 2,893 1,521 96 161 5,157 3,364 

 Independents 4,683 10,121 774 9,442 4,412 2,001 1,941 69 400 5,709 7,210 

Financial aid

All undergraduates

Part-time, full-year undergraduates1

_______

72
Table A.16b—Average tuition, budget, financial need, financial aid, net price, and earnings while enrolled

Table A15.b—for low-income undergraduates, by selected characteristics: 1995–96—Continued

Financial Work- Net

 Tuition Budget EFC need Total Grants Loans study Other price Work

 Public 2-year $683 $5,253 $829 $4,622 $1,465 $931 $398 $74 $62 $3,786 $4,427 

 Dependents 674 5,350 986 4,550 766 640 90 26 9 4,584 4,703 

 Independents 686 5,219 775 4,647 1,705 1,031 504 91 80 3,511 4,331 

1

Limited to students who attended only one institution.

2

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Averages computed using zero values. Table section for all undergraduates includes students who attended more than 

one institution; section for part-time, full-year undergraduates is limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

(NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Financial aid

_______

73
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
75

Appendix B—Glossary

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The items were taken directly from the NCES NPSAS:93,

NPSAS:96, and BPS:96/98 undergraduate Data Analysis Systems (DAS), an NCES software application that generates tables from the NPSAS:93, NPSAS:96, and BPS:96/98 data (see appendix C for a description of the DAS).

The variables listed in the index below are organized by sections in the order they appear in the report. The variables

in the glossary are presented in alphabetical order by the variable label in the DAS, shown in bold, capital letters and

displayed along the right-hand column.

Glossary Index

NPSAS:96 VARIABLES

Institutional Characteristics

Institution type ............................................AIDSECT

Tuition and fees ........................................ TUITION2

Student Characteristics

Dependency status for financial aid ...........DEPEND2

Gender .........................................................GENDER

Age.......................................................................AGE

Race/ethnicity ................................................... RACE

Dependency status .......................................DEPEND

Marital status ...........................................SMARITAL

Single parent status .................................. SINGLPAR

Parents’ education...........................................PARED

Delayed postsecondary enrollment ........ DELAYENR

Attendance pattern .................................. ATTNSTAT

Housing status......................................... LOCALRES

Primary role ..................................................SEROLE

Income and dependency level ...................... INCOME

Percent of poverty level ........................... PCTPOV94

Financial Aid Variables

Student budget ........................................ BUDGETAJ

Expected family contribution............................. EFC4

Financial need...............................................SNEED1

Applied for financial aid ............................... AIDAPP

Any aid/Total aid ..........................................TOTAID

Any grants/Average grant amount................TOTGRT

Total Pell grant ......................................... PELLAMT

Any loans/Any loan amount......................TOTLOAN

Any work-study/Average work-

 study amount...........................................TOTWKST

Any other type aid/Average other

 type aid amount....................................... TOTOTHR

Stafford total maximum

 amount ....................................................STAFFCT2

All Stafford loans....................................STAFFAMT

Stafford unsubsidized loans .................... STAFUNSB

Any federal aid/Average federal aid

 amount ......................................................TFEDAID

Any state aid/Average state aid

 amount ................................................. STATEAMT

Any institutional aid/Average

 institutional aid amount............................INSTAMT

Total aid as a percentage of student

 budget ....................................................... AIDCST1

Ratio of grants to total aid............................ GRTPCT

Ratio of loans to total aid.......................... LOANPCT

Ratio of federal aid to total aid .....................FEDPCT

Unmet need...................................................SNEED2

Net price .....................................................NETCST1

Other Income Variables

Parents expected student to work in

 1995–96 ...............................................SHWRKEXP

Percent who worked/Average hours

 worked per week while enrolled ............HRSWORK

Student earnings while enrolled

 1995–96 ....................................................... WKINC

Direct contribution......................................PARPDIR

Allowance .............................................. SCPARALW

Average allowance.................................TOTALLOW

Parent(s) loans ........................................ SCPARLON
Appendix B—Glossary

76

NPSAS:93 VARIABLES

Tuition ...................................................... TUITION2

Student budget ....................................... BUDGETAR

Expected family contribution............................. EFC4

Financial need.......................................... SNEED3R2

Total aid................................................... TOTAIDR2

Grant amount ............................................ TOTGRTR

Loan amount .......................................... TOTLOANR

Work-study ...............................................TOTWKST

Other aid ................................................... TOTOTHR

Net price ..................................................NETCST3R

Student earnings (work).............................WRKINC2

BPS:96 VARIABLES

Total 3-year persistence and

 attainment...............................................PRENRLB1

Gender ....................................................SBGENDER

Race/ethnicity .............................................. SBRACE

Dependency status ................................... SBDEP2Y1

Parents’ education................................... PBEDBOT2

Delayed postsecondary enrollment ........... ENDELAY

Type of first institution ..............................ITNPSAS2

Attendance pattern .........................................ENIPY1

Hours worked per week ...........................JEHOURB1

Received loans ........................................ AALON1Y1

Parent loans............................................. PSLOANY1

Parent contribution...................................PSDRCTY1

Percent of poverty level .............................. SFPOV94
Appendix B—Glossary

77

NPSAS:96 VARIABLES

Age AGE

Indicates student’s age as of 12/31/95. Calculated from date of birth.

Less than 24 years

24–29 years

30 years or older

Applied for financial aid AIDAPP

Indicates whether the student ever applied for financial aid in 1995–96 (Yes/No). Students who were not interviewed

and had no record of an aid application were assumed to have not applied.

Total aid as a percentage of student budget AIDCST1

Indicates ratio of total aid to the attendance-adjusted student budget during 1995–96. Equal to the total amount of all

aid (TOTAID) divided by the attendance-adjusted student budget (BUDGETAJ). For students attending more than

one institution during 1995–96, aid ratios, budgets, net cost, and need were calculated for the aid received at the

NPSAS institution in relation to the budget and attendance at the NPSAS institution.

Institution type AIDSECT

Indicates the level and control of the NPSAS institution. Institution level concerns the institution’s highest offering,

and control concerns the source of revenue and control of operations. Students attending more than one institution in

1995–96 are in a separate category because information on tuition, price of attendance, and financial aid at the second institution is incomplete or unknown. “More than one institution” is not shown in the tables, but is included in

the totals. Doctorate- and nondoctorate-granting 4-year institutions are aggregated in this report. Public less-than-2-

year and private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year are not shown in the tables. They are included in the totals, as indicated on the tables.

Public 4-year Public institutions are supported primarily by public funds and

operated by publicly elected or appointed officials who control

the programs and activities. Public 4-year institutions award

bachelor’s degrees or higher, including doctorate and firstprofessional degrees. First-professional degrees include chiropractic, pharmacy, dentistry, podiatry, medicine, veterinary

medicine, optometry, law, osteopathic medicine, and theology.

Private, not-for-profit 4-year Private, not-for-profit institutions are controlled by an independent governing board and incorporated under section

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Private, not-for-profit

4-year institutions offer the same range of degrees as public 4-

year institutions.

Public 2 year Public 2-year institutions are public institutions (described

above) that do not confer bachelor’s degrees, but provide 2-

year programs that result in a certificate or an associate’s degree, or 2-year programs that fulfill part of the requirements

for a bachelor’s degree or higher at a 4-year institution.
Appendix B—Glossary

78

Private, for-profit Private, for-profit institutions are privately owned and operated as profit-making enterprises. They include career colleges

and proprietary institutions. They may be 4-year, 2-year, or

less-than-2-year institutions. Less-than-2-year institutions offer

at least one program that is three months or longer and produces a terminal award or certificate. In addition, no program

at these institutions lasts longer than 2 years.

Other This residual category includes public less-than-2-year institutions and private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year institutions. In

addition, students attending more than one institution in 1995–

96 were categorized as attending “other” types of institutions.

Attendance pattern ATTNSTAT

Combined attendance intensity and persistence during 1995–96. Intensity refers to the student’s full- or part-time

attendance while enrolled. Persistence refers to the number of months a student was enrolled during the year. Students were considered to have been enrolled for a full year if they were enrolled for 8 or more months during 1995–

96. Months did not have to be contiguous or at the same institution, and students did not have to be enrolled for a full

month in order to be considered enrolled for that month. In prior NPSAS surveys, full year had been defined as 9 or

more months.

Full-time, full-year, one institution

Part-time, full-year, one institution

Other

Student budget BUDGETAJ

Indicates total student budget (attendance-adjusted) at the NPSAS school. This variable is comparable to the

NPSAS:93 variable BUDGETAR. For more details see BUDGETAR.

Delayed postsecondary enrollment DELAYENR

Indicates the number of years between high school graduation and entry into postsecondary education. Assumes high

school graduation takes place in May or June. If the student entered PSE in the summer or fall subsequent to high

school graduation (entered in the same calendar year) then the student is not considered delayed. Otherwise, the variable represents number of years (calendar years) student delayed enrollment into PSE.

No delay

1 year delay

2 years or more
Appendix B—Glossary

79

Dependency status DEPEND

Student dependency status. Students were considered independent if they met any of the following criteria:

1) Student was age 24 or older as of 12/31/95;

2) Student was a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces;

3) Student was enrolled in a graduate or professional program (beyond a bachelor’s degree) in 1995–96;

4) Student was married;

5) Student was an orphan or ward of the court; or

6) Student had legal dependents other than spouse.

In addition, financial aid officers may designate students who do not meet these criteria to be independent, if

the students can document that they are in fact self-supporting.

Dependent

Independent

Dependency status for financial aid DEPEND2

Student dependency status for financial aid. Combines student dependency status and whether they have dependents.

The distinction between the two types of independent students changed between NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96 as a result of the 1992 Reauthorization Amendments. Prior to the 1993–94 academic year, the spouse of a married student

was considered to be a dependent of the student, and married students without children were classified as independent with dependents. As of 1993–94, the spouse of a student is not considered to be that student’s dependent, so married students without children are classified as independent without dependents in NPSAS:96.

Dependent

Independent without dependents

Independent with dependents

Expected family contribution EFC4

Indicates composite expected family contribution for 1995–96. The best estimate of the student’s EFC, derived from

examining the EFC values reported in the Pell payment file, the CPS matching records, the NPSAS institution in

CADE, or estimated by regressions based on dependency, family size, income, assets, and number in college. Differences in the timing of these sources (any time during the NPSAS year), differences in the institutions to which they

refer (not necessarily the NPSAS institution where the student was sampled), changes in the student’s dependency

status and financial situation during the period of a year, and the potential use of professional judgment changes by

financial aid officers at any time or at any institution make it impossible to determine a single definitive EFC value

or dependency status for all students during the entire year. For Pell grant recipients, the EFC on the Pell payment

file was always used; for other financial aid recipients, the primary EFC from the most recent CPS record (CPS162)

was used if available, or an EFC reported by the NPSAS institution was used. Approximately 52 percent of the EFCs

were imputed. The percentage of students with reported EFCs in a particular category is approximately the same as

the percentage who received federal financial aid in that category.

Ratio of federal aid to total aid FEDPCT

Indicates the proportion of total aid that is federal. Equal to total amount of federal aid, excluding veteran’s benefits

(VA/DOD), but including PLUS loans divided by total amount of all aid.
Appendix B—Glossary

80

Gender GENDER

Male

Female

Ratio of grants to total aid GRTPCT

Indicates the percentage of total aid that was grant aid during 1995–96. Equal to total amount of grant aid divided by

total aid amount, multiplied by 100. Only computed for those who had some aid. For students attending more than

one institution during 1995–96, aid ratios, budgets, net cost, and need were calculated for the aid received at the

NPSAS institution in relation to the budget and attendance at the NPSAS institution.

Percent who worked/

Average hours worked per week while enrolled HRSWORK

Average number of hours per week that students reported working while enrolled in 1995–96. It is based on the student CATI question “About how many hours did you work per week while you were enrolled?” The variable does

not include hours worked when the student was not enrolled.

Did not work

1–15 hours

16–20 hours

21–34 hours

35 hours or more

Income and dependency level INCOME

Indicates total family income in 1994 (categorical) by student dependency status.

Dependent

Less than $20,000

$20,000–$29,999

$30,000–$39,999

$40,000–$49,999

$50,000–$59,999

$60,000–$69,999

$70,000–$79,999

$80,000–$99,999

$100,000 or more

Independent

Less than $5,000

$5,000–$9,999

$10,000–$19,999

$20,000–$29,999

$30,000–$49,999

$50,000 or more
Appendix B—Glossary

81

Any institutional aid/ INSTAMT

Average institutional aid amount

Indicates the total institutional aid amount received during 1995–96. Equal to the sum of institutional grants and fellowships, loans, institution-sponsored work-study, and all other institutional amounts including assistantships. The

percentage with a positive value is the percentage with institutional aid. See grid under TOTAID for more information.

Ratio of loans to total aid LOANPCT

Indicates the ratio of loans to total aid, or the percentage of total aid that is loans received during 1995–96. Equal to

total amount of all loans, excluding PLUS divided by total amount of all aid multiplied by 100. Only computed for

students who had some amount of aid. For students attending more than one institution during 1995–96, aid ratios,

packages, budgets, net cost, and need were calculated for the aid received at the NPSAS institution in relation to the

budget and attendance at the NPSAS institution. Students attending more than one institution are also identified as a

separate category in AIDSECT (Institution type for financial aid).

Housing status LOCALRES

The student housing status as reported either by the NPSAS institution for the student budget, by the student on the

financial aid application, or by the student in the telephone interview.

On campus Student lived in institution-owned living quarters for students.

These are typically institution-owned dormitories, residence

halls, or other facilities.

Off campus Student lived off campus in noninstitution-owned housing, but

not with his or her parents or other relatives.

With parents/other relatives Student lived at home with parents or other relatives.

Net price NETCST1

Indicates attendance-adjusted student budget minus total aid. This item helps to answer “On average, how much

money did students (including full-time and part-time students) who attended in 1995–96 need to come up with, considering the student budget (tuition, books, fees, living expenses) then subtracting all aid received (grants, loans,

work-study)?” It is not the total amount, because the loans will need to be repaid someday.

Parents’ education PARED

The highest level of education completed by the student’s parents (mother or father, whoever has the highest level).

Less than high school Neither parent graduated from high school or received a General Educational Development (GED) certificate.

High school diploma One or both parents graduated from high school or received a

GED.

At least some college One or both parents had some postsecondary education.
Appendix B—Glossary

82

Direct contribution PARPDIR

For CATI respondents under age 30 only, indicates whether parents reported making a direct contribution to the institution to pay for tuition, housing, meals, or books. If not available, the student’s report of direct payment for tuition, room and board, or books was used.

No support

$1,000 or less

More than $1,000

Percent of poverty level PCTPOV94

Indicates total 1994 income as a percentage of the federal poverty-level thresholds for 1994. Based on family size,

total income, and dependency. Refers to the family of the parents of dependent students and the student’s own family

if independent. Derived from total income in 1994 based on dependency and household size based on dependency.

Maximum set at 1,000 (10 times poverty threshold); all values above 1,000 are recoded to 1,000. Students were defined as low income if their family income was below 125 percent of poverty threshold for their family size.

Total Pell grant PELLAMT

Indicates the federal Pell grant amount received during 1995–96 at all schools attended. Institutional reports in

CADE were supplemented with the 1995–96 Pell grant payment file information that includes payments at schools

other than the NPSAS school if the student attended more than one during the NPSAS year. Pell grants are awarded

to undergraduates who have not yet received a bachelor’s or first-professional degree. They are intended as a financial base to which other financial aid awards can be added. The amount of a Pell grant depends on EFC, cost of attendance, and attendance status (i.e. full-time or part-time, full-year or part-year). In 1995–96, the maximum Pell

grant amount was $2,340.

Race/ethnicity RACE

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (except those of Hispanic origin).

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of

Africa, not of Hispanic origin.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of

race.

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the peoples of the Far East,

Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or Pacific Islands.

This includes people from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine

Islands, Samoa, India, and Vietnam.

American Indian/Alaskan Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North

America and who maintains cultural identification through

tribal affiliation or community recognition.

Other A person not in any of the above categories.
Appendix B—Glossary

83

Allowance SCPARALW

For CATI respondents age 30 or younger with a parent/guardian, this variable indicates the amount parents paid as

allowance in 1995–96.

Parent(s) loans SCPARLON

For CATI respondents age 30 or younger with a parent/guardian, this variable indicates the amount of money the

student borrowed from parents to meet 1995–96 school expenses. This is money that the student expects to repay.

Primary role SEROLE

Student response to the question “While you were working, would you say that you were primarily a student working

to meet expenses or an employee who’s decided to enroll in school?” Asked on student CATI.

Not working

Student working to meet expenses

Employee enrolled in school

Parents expected student to work in 1995–96 SHWRKEXP

Student response to the question “Did your [referent parent] expect you to have a job for pay during the 1995–96

school year?” Asked of all dependent students on student CATI (Yes/No).

Single parent status SINGLPAR

Indicates whether student was a single parent in 1995–96. Students were considered to be single parents if they had

dependents and were not married. Asked on student CATI (Yes/No).

Not a single parent

Single parent

Marital status SMARITAL

Marital status of student when applied for financial aid in 1995–96.

Separated or not married

Married

Financial need SNEED1

This variable measures total need for financial aid based on the price of attendance minus the expected family contribution.
Appendix B—Glossary

84

Unmet need SNEED2

This variable measures unmet need based on the price of attendance minus the expected family contribution minus

financial aid received, if any, including loans.

All Stafford loans STAFFAMT

Indicates the total amount of Stafford loans (Direct, FFEL, subsidized, and unsubsidized) received during 1995–96,

including loans borrowed to attend schools other than the NPSAS school. All of the federal loan variables in

NPSAS:96 include the loans borrowed at all schools attended, since the CADE institutional-reported amounts were

supplemented with information from the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS).

There are four categories of federal Stafford Loans. Under the Direct Loan Program, the federal government makes

loans directly to students and parents through schools. Under the FFEL Program, private lenders such as banks,

credit unions, and savings and loan associations usually make the loans. Although the source of funds is different,

both programs provide the same types of loans. A subsidized loan is awarded on the basis of financial need. If a student qualifies for a subsidized loan, the federal government pays the interest on the loan until the student begins repayment and during authorized periods of deferment thereafter. An unsubsidized loan is not awarded on the basis of

need. If a student qualifies for an unsubsidized loan, he or she is charged interest from the time the loan is disbursed

until it is paid in full. Students can choose to pay the interest or allow it to accumulate. If the student allows the interest to accumulate, it will be capitalized (added to the principal amount of the loan). Annual loan limits vary considerably.

Stafford total maximum amount STAFFCT2

Indicates the Stafford total amount categories received during 1995–96. Classifies the Stafford loan total amount

(STAFFAMT) into categories based on maximum loan amounts for subsidized and unsubsidized loans combined.

Maximum loan amounts were determined by the student’s class level and dependency status according to the following table:

Student class level: Dependent: Independent:

First year $2,625 $6,625

Second year $3,500 $7,500

Third–fifth year $5,500 $10,500

Graduate/First-professional N.A. $18,500

None

Less than maximum

Maximum

Stafford unsubsidized loans STAFUNSB

Indicates the amount of unsubsidized Stafford (FFEL or Direct) loans received during 1995–96. For more information about loans, see STAFFAMT.
Appendix B—Glossary

85

Any state aid/ STATEAMT

Average state aid amount

Indicates the amount of state aid received during 1995–96. Equal to the sum of state grants (STGTAMT), state loans

(STLNAMT), state-sponsored work-study (STWKAMT), and all other state financial aid (STOTHAMT). Includes

amounts awarded for state work-study and State Student Incentive Grants (SSIG) grants (including the federal portion). The percentage with a positive value on this variable is the percentage with any state aid. See grid under

TOTAID for more information.

Any federal aid/ TFEDAID

Average federal aid amount

Indicates the total amount of federal financial aid, excluding veterans benefits. Equal to the sum of federal loans

(TFEDLN), federal grants (TFEDGRT), federal work-study (TFEDWRK), and all other federal financial aid, excluding veteran’s benefits, received during 1995–96. The percentage with a positive amount for this variable is the

percentage with any federal aid. See grid under TOTAID for more information.

Any aid/ TOTAID

Total aid 

Indicates the total amount of all financial aid received during 1995–96. The percentage with a positive value is the

percentage with any aid. Aid status identifies those with a positive amount. TOTAID is related to other award variables by type and source of aid according to this grid:

Federal + State + Institutional + Other = Total

Grants: TFEDGRT + STGTAMT + INGRTAMT + OTHGTAMT = TOTGRT

Loans: TFEDLN + STLNAMT + INLNAMT + OTHLNAMT = TOTLOAN

Work: TFEDWRK + STWKAMT + INSTCWS + OTHWKAMT = TOTWKST

Other: TFEDOTHR + STOTHAMT + INOTHAMT + OTHROTHR = TOTOTHR

Total: TFEDAID + STATEAMT + INSTAMT + OTHRSCR = TOTAID

PLUS loans are included in TFEDOTHR and TOTOTHR rather than in TFEDLN and TOTLOAN. Veteran’s and

military benefits are included in OTHROTHR (“other” financial aid), rather than as part of any federal aid totals.

Assistantships are classified as “other” type and “institutional” source. There are two totals of “other” amounts: other

by type and other by source.

TOTOTHR is the total of all amounts that were not classified by type as grants, loans, or work-study. This includes

PLUS loans (PLUSAMT3), veterans benefits and military aid, and vocational rehabilitation and JTPA. OTHRSCR is

the total of all amounts that were not classified by source as federal, state, or institutional, including employer aid

and private aid. The percentage with a positive value is the percentage with any aid. Aid status identifies those with a

positive amount.

NOTE: Not all NPSAS DAS variables shown in this grid are used individually in this report, and thus they do not

appear in the glossary.
Appendix B—Glossary

86

Average allowance TOTALLOW

For CATI respondents aged 30 or younger, this variable indicates the total amount of allowance the student reported

receiving from his or her parents during 1995–96.

Any grants/ TOTGRT

Average grants amount

Indicates the total amount of all grants and scholarships: federal, state, institutional, and other received during 1995–

96. Equal to sum of all federal grants (TFEDGRT), state grants (STGTAMT), institutional grants (INGTAMT), and

“other” grants that were not classified as federal, state, or institutional. Includes employer tuition reimbursements.

The percentage with a positive value is the percentage with any grant aid. Grant status identifies those with a positive

amount. See grid under TOTAID for more information.

Any loans/

Average loan amount TOTLOAN

Indicates the total amount of all loans: federal, state, institutional, and private sector received during 1995–96 except

PLUS. Equal to the sum of federal loan amount, state loan amount, institution loan amount, and other loan amount.

Does not include PLUS loans. The percentage with a positive value is the percentage with any loan aid. Loan status

identifies those with a positive amount.

Any other type aid/ TOTOTHR

Average other type aid amount

Indicates the total amount of aid received during 1995–96 that was not classified as grants, loans, or work-study.

Includes teaching and research assistantships, PLUS loans, veteran’s benefits and military tuition aid, vocational

rehabilitation, and JTPA. Equal to the sum of other federal amounts, other state amounts (STOTHAMT), and other

institutional amounts (INOTHAMT). The percentage with a positive value is the percentage with any other aid.

Any work-study/ TOTWKST

Average work-study amount

Indicates the total amount of all work-study awards received during 1995–96. Equal to the sum of federal work-study

amount (TFEDWRK), state work-study amount (STWKAMT), and institution work-study amount (INSTWRK). The

percentage with a positive value is the percentage with any work-study aid.

Tuition and fees TUITION2

Indicates the amount of tuition charged the student for the terms attended at the NPSAS institution, as reported by

the institution. If tuition amounts were not reported, they were estimated based on the average per credit or per term

charges for other students at the institution according to their class level, degree program, and attendance status. Students attending more than one institution during 1995–96 are excluded, since their tuition at the second institution is

unknown.
Appendix B—Glossary

87

Student earnings while enrolled 1995–96 WKINC

For CATI respondents who were employed, this variable indicates student income earned from working while enrolled during 1995–96. Income was constructed by examining student-reported income from working while enrolled

and the frequency of that income.

NPSAS:93 VARIABLES

Student budget BUDGETAR

This variable estimates the student budget based on tuition paid, number of months enrolled, and attendance status

while enrolled. Nontuition costs are reduced for half-time (75 percent), unknown status (50 percent), and less than

half-time (25 percent) and the actual tuition is added to the estimated nontuition costs. Applies only to the months

attended at the NPSAS institution if more than one institution was attended. This variable is comparable to the

NPSAS:96 variable BUDGETAJ.

Expected family contribution EFC4

Indicates composite expected family contribution for 1992–93. The best estimate of the student’s EFC, derived from

examining the EFC values reported in the Pell payment file, the CPS matching records, the NPSAS institution in

CADE, or estimated by regressions based on dependency, family size, income, assets, and number in college. Differences in the timing of these sources (any time during the NPSAS year), differences in the institutions to which they

refer (not necessarily the NPSAS institution where the student was sampled), changes in the student’s dependency

status and financial situation during the period of a year, and the potential use of professional judgment changes by

financial aid officers at any time or at any institution make it impossible to determine a single definitive EFC value

or dependency status for all students during the entire year. For Pell grant recipients, the EFC on the Pell payment

file was always used; for other financial aid recipients, the primary EFC from the most recent CPS record (CPS162)

was used if available, or an EFC reported by the NPSAS institution was used. Approximately 52 percent of the EFCs

were imputed. The percentage of students with reported EFCs in a particular category is approximately the same as

the percentage who received federal financial aid in that category. This variable is comparable to the NPSAS:96

variable EFC4.

Net price NETCST3R

Indicates attendance-adjusted student budget minus total aid. This item helps to answer “On average, how much

money did students (including full-time and part-time students) who attended in 1993–94 need to come up with, considering the student budget (tuition, books, fees, living expenses) then subtracting all aid received (grants, loans,

work-study)?” It is not the total amount, because the loans will need to be repaid someday. This variable is comparable to the NPSAS:96 variable NETCST1.

Financial need SNEED3R2

Need for financial aid according to federal methodology. Equal to the adjusted student budget minus the EFC. Negative values were set to zero. Revised September 1998 to exclude all students with missing budgets or EFC data.

Comparable to the NPSAS:96 variable SNEED1.
Appendix B—Glossary

88

Total aid TOTAIDR2

Indicates the total amount of all financial aid received during 1992–93. The percentage with a positive value is the

percentage with any aid. Aid status identifies those with a positive amount. For more detailed information, please see

the NPSAS:96 variable TOTAID.

Grant amount TOTGRTR

Average total amount of all grants: federal, state, institutional, and other. Equal to the sum of total of all federal

grants, total of all state grants, total of all institutional grants, and other grants that could not be classified as federal,

state, or institutional. Comparable to the NPSAS:96 variable TOTGRT.

Total loan amount (except PLUS) TOTLOANR

Average total amount of all loans: federal, state, and institutional. Equal to the sum of federal loan amount, state loan

amount, institution loan amount, and other loan amount. Does not include PLUS loans. Comparable to the

NPSAS:96 variable TOTLOAN.

Other aid TOTOTHR

Total of amounts that could not be classified as grants, loans, or work-study. Includes teaching and research assistantships, PLUS loans and veteran’s benefits. Equal to the sum of total of other federal amounts, total of other state

amounts, total of other institutional amounts, and total of other “other” amounts, i.e., those that could be classified as

neither federal/state/institutional nor as grants/loans/work-study. Comparable to the NPSAS:96 variable TOTOTHR.

Tuition TUITION2

Tuition and fees charged at the sampled NPSAS institution for the terms attended in 1992–93. Excludes students

who attended more than one institution. Comparable to the NPSAS:96 variable TUITION2.

Work-study TOTWKST

Total amount of all work-study awards. Equal to the sum of total federal work-study amount, total state work-study

amount, total institution work-study amount, and total other work-study amount. Research assistantships and teaching assistantships are included in “other” institutional aid amounts.

Student earnings (work) WRKINC2

Student’s total income from all jobs, including work-study and assistantships, between July 1, 1992 and June 30,

1993. Based primarily on CATI data. Comparable to the NPSAS:96 variable WRKINC.
Appendix B—Glossary

89

BPS:96/98 VARIABLES

Received loans AALON1Y1

Indicates whether student received loans and the average total amount of all loans federal, state, institutional, and

private sector received during 1995–96, excluding PLUS loans (Yes/No).

Delayed postsecondary enrollment ENDELAY

Indicates whether respondents delayed enrollment in postsecondary education, as determined by receipt of high

school diploma prior to 1995 or reaching age 20 before December 31, 1995.

Did not delay

Delayed

Attendance pattern ENIPY1

Pattern of enrollment intensity during months enrolled during 1995–96 academic year.

Always full-time

Always part-time

Mixed

Type of first institution ITNPSAS2

Level and control of the first institution attended. The sample size of beginners at less-than-2-year private, not-forprofit institutions was too small to report.

Public 4-year Public institutions are supported primarily by public funds and

operated by publicly elected or appointed officials who control

the programs and activities. Public 4-year institutions award

bachelor’s degrees or higher, including doctorate and firstprofessional degrees. First-professional degrees include chiropractic, pharmacy, dentistry, podiatry, medicine, veterinary

medicine, optometry, law, osteopathic medicine, and theology.

Private, not-for-profit 4-year Private, not-for-profit institutions are controlled by an independent governing board and incorporated under section

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Private, not-for-profit

4-year institutions offer the same range of degrees as public 4-

year institutions.

Public 2-year Public 2-year institutions are public institutions (described

above) that do not confer bachelor’s degrees, but provide 2-

year programs that result in a certificate or an associate’s degree, or 2-year programs that fulfill part of the requirements

for a bachelor’s degree or higher at a 4-year institution.

Public, less-than-2 year Public less-than-2-year institutions are public institutions (described above) where all programs are less than 2 years in du-
Appendix B—Glossary

90

ration. The institution must offer a minimum of one program

of at least 3 months in duration that results in a terminal certificate or license or is creditable toward a formal 2-year or

higher award.

All others This residual category includes private, not-for-profit lessthan-4-year; private, for-profit less-than-2 year; and private,

for-profit 2-year or more institutions.

Hours worked per week JEHOURB1

Average number or hours per week that students reported working while enrolled in enrolled in 1995–96. It is based

on the student CATI question: About how many hours do/did you work each week while you are/were enrolled?”

The variable does not include hours worked when the student was not enrolled.

0 hours

1–14 hours

15–24 hours

25 or more hours

Parents’ education PBEDBOT2

The highest level of education completed by the student’s parents (mother or father, whoever has the highest level).

Less than high school

High school diploma

At least some college

Total 3-year persistence and attainment PRENRLB1

Identifies whether students had attained a degree by June 1998 and whether or not they were enrolled during spring

1998 by level of institution. Enrollment during any month from February through June 1998 constitutes enrollment

during spring 1998. This analysis looks at students who attained or were still enrolled.

Parent contribution PSDRCTY1

Indicates whether parents reported making a direct contribution to the institution to pay for student tuition, housing,

meals, or books. If not available student’s report of direct payment for tuition, room and board, or books was used.

Asked on parent CATI in NPSAS:96 (Yes/No).

Parent loans PSLOANY1

Indicates whether respondent borrowed money from parents to help pay expenses during 1995–96. Asked on student

CATI in NPSAS:96 (Yes/No).
Appendix B—Glossary

91

Dependency status SBDEP2Y1

Student dependency status for financial aid. Combines student dependency status and whether they have dependents.

The distinction between the two types of independent students changed between NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96 as a result of the 1992 Reauthorization Amendments. Prior to the 1993–94 academic year, the spouse of a married student

was considered to be a dependent of the student, and married students without children were classified as independent with dependents. As of 1993–94, the spouse of a student is not considered to be that student’s dependent, so married students without children are classified as independent without dependents in NPSAS:96.

Dependent

Independent without dependents

Independent with dependents

Gender SBGENDER

Male

Female

Race/ethnicity SBRACE

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (except those of Hispanic origin).

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of

Africa, not of Hispanic origin.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of

race.

Asian/ Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the peoples of the Far East,

Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or Pacific Islands.

This includes people from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine

Islands, Samoa, India, and Vietnam.

American Indian/Alaskan Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North

America and who maintain cultural identification through

tribal affiliation or community recognition.

Percent of poverty level SFPOV94

Indicates total 1994 income as a percentage of the federal poverty-level thresholds for 1994. Based on family size,

total income, and dependency. Refers to the family of the parents of dependent students and the student’s own family

if independent. Derived from total income in 1994 based on dependency and household size based on dependency.

Maximum set at 1,000 (10 times poverty threshold); all values above 1,000 are recoded to 1,000. Students were defined as low income if their family income was below 125 percent of poverty threshold for their family size.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
93

Appendix C—Technical Notes and Methodology

The National Postsecondary Student Aid and Beginning Postsecondary

Students Studies

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) is a comprehensive nationwide

study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics

(NCES) to determine how students and their families pay for postsecondary education.18 It also

describes demographic and other characteristics of students enrolled. The study is based on a nationally representative sample of all students in postsecondary education institutions, including

undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students. Students attending all types and levels of

institutions are represented in the sample, including public and private institutions, less-than-2-

year institutions, 2-year institutions, and 4-year colleges and universities. The study is designed

to address the policy questions resulting from the rapid growth of financial aid programs and the

succession of changes in financial aid program policies since 1986. The first NPSAS was conducted in 1986–87, then again in 1989–90, 1992–93, and 1995–96. This report relied primarily

on data from the 1995–96 NPSAS. The 1992–93 NPSAS was used to examine change over time

in selected variables.

The Beginning Postsecondary Student Longitudinal Study (BPS) is composed of the students who participated in the 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS:96)

who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96. The BPS sample consists

of students identified in NPSAS:96 as beginning postsecondary education for the first time. Unlike other NCES longitudinal surveys (such as High School and Beyond) which are based on agespecific cohorts, the BPS sample is more likely to include some of the increasing numbers of

“nontraditional” postsecondary students, such as those who have delayed their education due to

financial need or family responsibilities. The first follow-up of the BPS cohort (BPS:96/98) occurred in the spring and summer of 1998, approximately 3 years after they first enrolled.

 

18For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

Methodology Report for the 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NCES 98–073) (Washington, DC: 1997). Additional information is also available at http://nces.ed.gov/npsas.
Appendix C—Technical Notes and Methodology

94

Accuracy of Estimates

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of

error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because

observations are made only on samples of students, not entire populations. Nonsampling errors

occur not only in sample surveys but also in complete censuses of entire populations. Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete information

about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or institutions refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct information; mistakes in

recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing, sampling, and imputing

missing data.

Data Analysis System

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:96, NPSAS:93, and

BPS:96/98 Data Analysis Systems (DAS). The DAS software makes it possible for users to

specify and generate their own tables. With the DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables presented in this report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates proper standard errors19 and weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table C1 contains

standard errors that correspond to table 4, generated by the DAS. If the number of valid cases is

too small to produce a reliable estimate (less than 30 cases), the DAS prints the message “low-N”

instead of the estimate.

In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a correlation matrix of selected variables to

be used for linear regression models. Included in the output with the correlation matrix are the

design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. Since statistical procedures generally

compute regression coefficients based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors

must be adjusted with the design effects to take into account the stratified sampling method used

in the NPSAS and BPS surveys.

 

19The NPSAS:96 samples are not simple random samples, and therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and calculates

standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor series

method.
Appendix C—Technical Notes and Methodology

95

For more information about the NPSAS:93, NPSAS:96, BPS:96/98, and other Data Analysis Systems, consult the NCES DAS website (www.nces.ed.gov/das) or its West Coast mirror

site (www.pedar-das.org), or contact:

Aurora D’Amico

NCES Postsecondary and Educational Outcomes Longitudinal Studies

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5652

(202) 219-1365

Internet address: Adamico@inet.ed.gov

Table C1—Standard errors for table 4: Percentage of low-income undergraduates enrolled full time,

Table C1—full year who applied for and received financial aid, by type of aid, type of institution, and

Table C1—dependency status: 1995–96

Applied Any Pell Work

for aid aid Grants grant1 Loans study Other2

 Total3 0.88 1.02 1.12 1.30 1.59 0.99 0.70

Type of institution and dependency status

 Public 4-year 0.93 1.05 1.30 1.53 1.85 0.99 0.83

 Dependents 1.36 1.59 1.71 2.23 2.48 1.27 0.95

 Independents without dependents 1.58 1.73 2.50 2.43 2.28 1.59 1.91

 Independents with dependents 1.48 1.66 1.75 1.96 2.91 2.30 2.04

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 0.90 2.32 2.32 2.67 2.41 2.11 1.54

 Dependents 1.20 3.60 3.60 3.71 2.93 2.78 1.84

 Independents without dependents 1.45 1.69 2.15 3.96 4.12 3.49 3.52

 Independents with dependents 2.56 3.13 3.38 3.90 4.32 3.38 1.98

 Public 2-year 2.77 2.84 3.35 4.09 3.28 3.44 2.03

 Dependents 4.63 4.77 5.12 6.10 4.33 5.53 2.29

 Independents without dependents 7.03 7.04 8.02 9.95 8.79 4.60 4.62

 Independents with dependents 3.94 3.97 4.07 4.96 4.69 3.78 3.21

1

Included in grants.

2

All other types of aid, such as assistantships, veterans benefits and military tuition aid, vocational rehabilitation, and JTPA. 3

Includes students who attended types of institutions other than those included here.

NOTE: Table limited to students who attended only one institution.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Type of aid
Appendix C—Technical Notes and Methodology

96

Statistical Procedures

Differences Between Means

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error,20 or significance

level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values for the differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with published tables of

significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing.

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the following formula:

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se

E E

t

+

− = (1)

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not independent, a covariance term must be added to the formula:

E -E

se + se - 2(r)se se

1 2

1

2

2

2

1 2

 (2)

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.21 This formula is used when comparing two

percentages from a distribution that adds to 100. If the comparison is between the mean of a subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used:

2

sub

2

tot

2

sub

sub tot

se se 2p se

E E

+ −

− (3)

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.22 The estimates, standard

errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS.

 

20A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the population

from which the sample was drawn, when no such difference is present.

21U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993.

22Ibid.
Appendix C—Technical Notes and Methodology

97

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages

but also to the number of students in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a small

difference compared across a large number of students would produce a large t statistic.

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests for each comparison occurs when making

multiple comparisons among categories of an independent variable. For example, when making

paired comparisons among different levels of income, the probability of a Type I error for these

comparisons taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single comparison. When more

than one difference between groups of related characteristics or “families” are tested for statistical significance, one must apply a standard that assures a level of significance for all of those

comparisons taken together.

Comparisons were made in this report only when p< .05/k for a particular pairwise comparison, where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that the

individual comparison would have p< .05 and that for k comparisons within a family of possible

comparisons, the significance level for all the comparisons will sum to p< .05.23

For example, in a comparison of males and females, only one comparison is possible

(males versus females). In this family, k=1, and the comparison can be evaluated without adjusting the significance level. When students are divided into five racial/ethnic groups and all possible comparisons are made, then k=10 and the significance level of each test must be p< .05/10, or

p< .005. The formula for calculating family size (k) is as follows:

k j j = ( ) −1

2 (4)

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of race/ethnicity,

there are five racial/ethnic groups (American Indian/Alaskan Native; Asian/Pacific Islander;

black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; and white, non-Hispanic), so substituting 5 for j in equation 2,

k = 5(5 -1)

2

=10

 

23The standard that p≤ .05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the comparisons should sum to p≤ .05. For tables showing the t statistic required to ensure that p≤ .05/k for a particular family size and degrees of freedom, see Olive Jean Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical Association

56 (1961): 52–64.
Appendix C—Technical Notes and Methodology

98

Adjustment of Means to Control for Background Variation

Tabular results are limited by sample size when attempting to control for additional factors

that may account for the variation observed between two variables. For example, when examining the percentages of those who completed a degree or were still enrolled in postsecondary education 3 years after their initial enrollment, it is impossible to know to what extent the observed

variation is due to socioeconomic status (SES) differences and to what extent it is due to differences in other factors related to SES, such as type of institution attended, intensity of enrollment,

and so on. However, if a nested table were produced showing SES within type of institution attended within enrollment intensity, the cell sizes would be too small to identify the patterns.

When the sample size becomes too small to support controls for another level of variation, one

must use other methods to take such variation into account.

To overcome this difficulty, multiple linear regression was used to obtain means that were

adjusted for covariation among a list of control variables.24 Adjusted means for subgroups were

obtained by regressing the dependent variable on a set of descriptive variables such as gender,

race–ethnicity, SES, and so on. Substituting ones or zeros for the subgroup characteristic(s) of

interest and the mean proportions for the other variables results in an estimate of the adjusted

proportion for the specified subgroup, holding all other variables constant. For example, consider

a hypothetical case in which two variables, age and gender, are used to describe an outcome, Y

(such as attaining a degree). The variables age and gender are recoded into a dummy variable representing age, A, and a dummy variable representing gender, G:

Age A

24 years or older 1

Less than 24 years old 0

and

Gender G

Female 1

Male 0

The following regression equation is then estimated from the correlation matrix output from the

DAS:

ˆ

Y = a + b1A+ b2G (5)

 

24For more information about weighted least squares regression, see Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Applied Regression: An Introduction, Vol. 22 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1980); William D. Berry and Stanley Feldman, Multiple Regression in

Practice, Vol. 50 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1987).
Appendix C—Technical Notes and Methodology

99

To estimate the adjusted mean for any subgroup evaluated at the mean of all other variables, one substitutes the appropriate values for that subgroup’s dummy variables (1 or 0) and the

mean for the dummy variable(s) representing all other subgroups. For example, suppose Y represents attainment, and is being described by age (A) and gender (G), coded as shown above, with

means as follows:

Variable Mean

A 0.355

G 0.521

Next, suppose the regression equation results in:

ˆ

Y = 0.15 + 0.17A + 0.01G (6)

To estimate the adjusted value for older students, one substitutes the appropriate parameter

estimates and variable values into equation 6.

Variable Parameter Value

a 0.15 —

A 0.17 1.000

G 0.01 0.521

This results in:

ˆ

Y = 0.15 +(0.17)(1) + (0.01)(0.521) = 0.325

In this case, the adjusted mean for older students is 0.325 and represents the expected outcome for older students who resemble the average student across the other variables (in this example, gender). In other words, the adjusted percentage who attained after controlling for age and

gender is 32.5 percent (0.325 x 100 for conversion to a percentage).

It is relatively straightforward to produce a multivariate model using the DAS, since one of

the DAS output options is a correlation matrix, computed using pairwise missing values. In regression analysis, there are several common approaches to the problem of missing data. The two

simplest are pairwise deletion of missing data and listwise deletion of missing data. In pairwise

deletion, each correlation is calculated using all of the cases for the two relevant variables. For

example, suppose you have a regression analysis that uses variables X1, X2, and X3. The regression is based on the correlation matrix between X1, X2 and X3. In pairwise deletion the correlation between X1 and X2 is based on the nonmissing cases for X1 and X2. Cases missing on

either X1 or X2 would be excluded from the calculation of the correlation. In listwise deletion

the correlation between X1 and X2 would be based on the nonmissing values for X1, X2, and
Appendix C—Technical Notes and Methodology

100

X3. That is, all of the cases with missing data on any of the three variables would be excluded

from the analysis.25

The correlation matrix can be used by most statistical software packages as the input data

for least squares regression. That is the approach used for this report, with an additional adjustment to incorporate the complex sample design into the statistical significance tests of the parameter estimates (described below). For tabular presentation, parameter estimates and standard

errors were multiplied by 100 to match the scale used for reporting unadjusted and adjusted percentages.

Most statistical software packages assume simple random sampling when computing standard errors of parameter estimates. Because of the complex sampling design used for the NPSAS

survey, this assumption is incorrect. A better approximation of their standard errors is to multiply

each standard error by the design effect associated with the dependent variable (DEFT),26 where

the DEFT is the ratio of the true standard error to the standard error computed under the assumption of simple random sampling. It is calculated by the DAS and produced with the correlation

matrix.

 

25Although the DAS simplifies the process of making regression models, it also limits the range of models. Analysts who wish to

use an approach other than pairwise treatment of missing values or to estimate probit/logit models (which are the most appropriate for models with categorical dependent variables) can apply for a restricted data license from NCES. See John H. Aldrich and

Forrest D. Nelson, Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models (Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences, Vol. 45) (Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage, 1984).

26The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in C.J. Skinner, D. Holt, and T.M.F. Smith, eds., Analysis of Complex Surveys (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989).